In a rare occurrence, arch rivals-National Democratic Congress and the ruling New Patriotic Party parliamentarians-seem to concur on one step taken by the government: the appointment of a new chief justice to replace the ailing incumbent.

While, as a matter of course all NPP legislators are publicly hailing President Kufuor’s nomination of Justice George Kingsley Acquah to replace Edward Kwame Wiredu in the third highest office of the land, the NDC constitutional, legal and parliamentary affairs spokesman, Mohammed Mumuni, has also okayed the president’s action as a prerogative properly exercised.

According to Alhaji Mumuni, the Kumbungu MP, President Kufuor has discharged his ''constitutional duty'', a duty he is the only person charged to perform, properly in consultation with the Council of State and awaiting the prior approval of Parliament.

In Ghana’s 26 cumulative years of parliamentary democracy, opposition/government party unanimity in support of government action are so rare that the number of such agreements can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

The one in recent memory was when MPs of the ruling NPP and the opposition parties – including archrival NDC members – enthusiastically approved government’s proposal to dish out $20,000 to each of them in the House as a soft loan to buy a car of their choice.

Another example, which also concerns cars for parliamentarians, was the approval of Peugeot saloon cars for all parliamentarians in 1981 during the Third Republic.

Before then, the antagonistic opposition Popular Front Party (PFP), which regenerated into the NPP, played ball with the then ruling Peoples National Party (PNP) to accept the fixing of the total remuneration of an MP at ?5,040 a month, a salary considered outrageous at the time when the minimum wage was ?12 a day or ?288 a month. That was also in the Third Republic.

Observers consider the agreement of leaders of the NDC and NPP parliamentarians on the appointment of the new chief justice, not only as a big plus for the nominee involved, but also one encouraging step in the direction of Ghana’s democratic maturity, especially as – this time round –the opposing parties are not agreeing on an issue of mutual benefit. The agreement also seems to bring into question queries being raised by some followers of the opposition parties over Mr. Acquah’s appointment.

Commenting on it, Kwame Osei-Prempeh, Parliament’s chairman on constitutional, legal and parliamentary affairs, has described the ‘hue and cry’ by the main opposition party, the NDC, over the appointment as the CJ as fallacious, hypocritical and a constitutional blunder.

''It is very hypocritical, diabolical and mischievous for anybody to use the proposition that the president ought to have appointed Justice Bamford Addo to act as chief justice, with the claim that it flaws the constitution.''

According to him, the nomination of Justice Acquah had lifted the nation out of the syndrome of appointing somebody who goes on retirement within two or three years after being appointed as CJ, adding that Justice Acquah who has nine years to be on the judiciary has already done a lot to merit the position.

The chairman argued that it would have been very anomalous on his part, if the president- who has the prerogative to appoint a CJ in consultation with the Council of State- had bypassed the enterprising Justice Acquah to appoint Justice Bamford Addo, who, though, qualified to be a CJ, does not match Mr. Aquah ''For me Justice Acquah, who has been at the helm of affairs in the judiciary and chairs about ten committees in the judiciary and has nine more years to leave the bench would do better in reforming the judicial system before he goes on retirement.''

Defending the President’s action, the NDC MP for Kumbungu added that the president can appoint a chief justice, not necessarily from the ranks of the judiciary, but any particular source- provided the person is qualified to be appointed a justice of the Supreme Court.

Alhaji Mumuni stressed that the president, in appointing Justice Acquah, had discharged his constitutional duties, a duty he has the sole power to perform in consultation with the Council of State and prior approval of Parliament.

Mr. Mumuni was reacting to the argument being raised by some people that Mrs. Bamford Addo was by-passed, being perceived as pro-NDC, because she was among the five justices of the Supreme Court who voted in the Tsatsu Tsikata case against the government’s position.

Mr. Mumuni noted that, if the perception gained ground, it would be most unfortunate because the appointment of the chief justice, who is the head of the judiciary, should be clearly non-partisan.

He said the appointment should reflect national unity. ''And therefore even if that perception is correct, it is alarming and disturbing.'' The minority spokesman further stated that if, indeed, Justice Wiredu is indisposed and for which reason he has decided to resign, then someone should be in the position to exercise those duties for him since it shows clearly that he is unavailable.

He, however, explained that the minority is concerned about the fact that Mrs. Bamford Addo is being prevented from acting in the short time between now and when the president’s nominee is approved because Article 144(6) of the Constitution says that when the chief justice is unable to perform his duties, the next most senior Supreme Court justice shall act, which means that Mrs. Justice Bamford Addo should have been in the chair now which is not the case.

On who qualifies to be a chief justice, he said the person should have practiced for over 15years, a man of integrity and high caliber.