*By William Dowokpor*

*Introduction:*

On Thursday, August 29, 2013, the one and only Supreme Court of the
Republic of Ghana will deliver judgment on the December 2012 presidential
election petition it has been hearing for months.

While is difficult to attempt to quantify the cost and lost opportunities
of the process to the nation as a whole, it is generally accepted as a
necessary evil that should settle once and for all, who actually won the
December 2012 presidential elections and what kind of electoral system we
should deploy for future elections to avoid such disputes.

*Constitutionalism:*

Ordinarily, in a multi-party democracy such as Ghana, the anticipated
judgment and its consequences should not create anxieties for anyone except
the parties involved in the dispute. More so when the hearing in its
entirety, has gone through the due process of law, leaving no one in doubt
about the existence and operation of constitutionalism in Ghana.

That, the 1992 constitution makes provision for the declaration of
presidential results by the electoral commission to be challenged at the
Supreme Court and the petitioners have exercised their right to do so,
without let or hindrance, should assure everyone interested in the welfare
of Ghana that, the process can only end well even if the losing party is
not happy with the outcome. Again, should the losing party decide to
exercise the right to seek a review, it should be seen as an opportunity to
reaffirm or clarify the ruling in law, since there is no room for new
evidence to be heard; and all litigation must have closure.

*Calls for Peace:*

Since the Court confirmed the day it intends to deliver judgment, scenarios
of hope and gloom have been put forth from several segments of society. But
the typical Ghanaian response has been calls for Peace! Peace! Peace!
Indeed, Ghana has carved a niche for itself as a most peaceful nation state
among her West African neighbours, and seems to be of the firm belief, that
absolute peace will prevail after the ruling. Ghanaians remain so
optimistic- the trust in God for everything including peace, is absolute.

*No Justice no Peace:*

While the church and mosque have turned to God, some politicians who may or
may not be part of the church or mosque; are pressing the “no peace without
justice” mantra - making justice a condition precedent for peace in error.
Thankfully, Ghanaians agree that justice is dispensed by the judiciary in
the law courts.

And in the election petition before the Supreme Court, both petitioners and
respondents have been given fair and equal opportunity to be heard. To that
end, the justice requirement has been satisfied.

There is therefore no justification whatsoever, for any one to preach “no
justice no peace’. Justice has been present and we have all seen it
dispensed in a few instances by the same panel of judges ahead of the
delivery of judgment in the substantive case before them. It is in our
collective interest to reject the misplaced mantra.

*Unity Government vs. Power – Sharing:*

Recent suggestion by the Metropolitan Archbishop of Accra, Most Reverend
Gabriel Charles Palmer-Buckle, that Ghana adopts a unity governance system
after the Supreme Court ruling for the next three years in order to bring
down the political tension in the country, does not taste palatable to
beneficiaries and perpetrators of the obnoxious winner takes all system of
governance operating in the country.

No where in the media account attributed to the Archbishop, did he suggest
“power-sharing”- a completely different construction has been put on the
man of God’s otherwise good suggestion to make it appear unreasonable and
politically incorrect. Unity government is synonymous with inclusive
government, where a party in power “draws’ members of other political
persuasions into its fold to steer affairs of the country. Indeed,
paragraph 2 of the account published at “myjoyonline” confirms what the
Archbishop said “He said whoever the August 29 judgment will favor, should
draw members from the losing party to form a government that will steer
affairs of the nation until the 2016 General Elections”.

Clearly, that suggestion is different from power-sharing, which constitutes
a formal legally binding arrangement of partnership in government. The
media must be alert to some of these nuances and help protect the
reputation of statesmen and women who have contributed and continue to
contribute to the peace and stability of Ghana through the sharing of wise
counsel.

*Winner takes all vs. All-inclusive government:*

The winner takes all system of governance, is what prevails in Ghana.
Professors Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, two world class economists,
in their book “Why Nations Fail…” link closed, extractive, exclusionist and
opaque systems of governance to poverty. They make some interesting
references to South Korea and Ghana which all Ghanaian politicians who care
about good governance must read.

Still on the expected Supreme Court ruling, calls for Ghana to eschew the
winner takes all government has gained currency. Unfortunately, these
calls do not come with workable solutions to the problem. Even the
beneficiaries and perpetrators have joined the chorus, which is good to
begin with.

The winner takes all mischief lies in the hybrid constitution we operate.
Contrary to the position presented at an Institute of Economic Affairs
(IEA) forum on the subject last week, only a review of sections of the
hybrid constitution will remove the winner takes all problem from our
governance system. With its extensive powers of appointment and the sole
source of legislation the Executive has beaten the legislature into
absolute submission making the principle of separation of powers and;
checks and balances almost non-existent in Ghana.



*Constitutional Reforms:*

Those who feel the winner takes all must change should join the progressive
campaign to amend the constitution to have Metropolitan, Municipal and
District Chief Executives MMDCEs popularly elected. That way, we can be
assured that people other than those whose political party is in power at
the executive level, can to be included in the governance of the country
through the local government system should they win elections at the local
level.

Secondly, Article 78 (1) which requires the President to appoint majority
of ministers from the legislature weaken parliament. With that arrangement,
legislators look up to the President instead of the Speaker and the people
they represent at the constituency level. Again those who wish to see an
end to winner takes all must support separation of the executive from the
legislature, to make the latter independent, strong and capable of
exercising its oversight responsibilities over the executive without fear
or favour.

Related to the problems of article 78 (1) is the need to stop the practice
of appointing members of the legislature to public boards and corporations.
Members of the legislature find themselves in conflict of interest
situations when they come to exercising their oversight responsibilities
over these boards and corporations.

*Conclusion:*

We have a beautiful country with a very bright future. There is no option
to accepting whatever ruling the Supreme Court hands down on August 29. We
must all embrace it and move on with the reform agenda in our governance
system to surgically remove the winner takes all arrangement and replace it
with an open, inclusive, accountable good governance system that guarantees
prosperity for Ghana and all of her people.

*# # #*

William Dowokpor is a Senior Partner at the Advocacy Communications Group.
E-mail: *billdowokpor@gmail.com* * / Cell:
0243588422.*