The national discourse that has been occasioned by the suspension of our National Assembly by the Speaker, Alban Bagbin, over the so-called vacant seats issue since October 7 is a classic case of the “chickens coming home to roost” as far as the 1992 Constitution is concerned.

Before and following the Speaker’s action in suspending Parliament twice and the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Speaker’s position on the vacant seats is unconstitutional, the country has been embroiled in an intense discourse that has shone the spotlight on a fundamental flaw in the basic law of the land, the 1992 Constitution.

Since the promulgation of the Constitution, Ghanaians have lived under the illusion that they live in a democratic dispensation simply because the three spheres of government (The Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary) are separate, equal, and independent.

Ghanaians are not the only ones to be blamed for the silence over this illusion that our country is a democracy. Our Western allies and benefactors are equally responsible for this state of affairs as far as our constitutional order is concerned.

Since 1992, our country has been touted by these actors as a beacon of democracy because the Constitution has underwritten five or six successive democratic elections.

In addition to these successive elections, the fact that Ghana appears to be an island of stability in a sea of instability in the West African sub-region has blinded many of our allies and friends to this fundamental flaw in the Constitution.

Even though the protagonists in the ongoing discourse have been haggling over whether the problem between the legislature and the judiciary amounts to a constitutional crisis, it is neither here nor there, for God’s sake.

The fact of the matter is that the 1992 Constitution was not designed for the so-called three arms of government to have equal powers consistent with classic liberal-democratic theory. This Constitution was and is haunted by the ghost of the Military Dictatorship that gave birth to it.

The Constituent Assembly that was tasked to frame the Constitution was packed with apparachiks of the then (P)NDC who readily acquiesced to the strong executive powers desired by their leader, JJ Rawlings, who transitioned from a military dictator to the first “democratic” President of the republic.

Besides the extensive powers granted to the Executive through its prerogative in making appointments, including those in the judicial branch, the requirement that one-half of the president’s ministers was a further ploy to strengthen the Executive at the expense of the legislature and judiciary.

Many of the governance problems the country is saddled with right now are a function of the unequal and broad powers of the executive branch vis a vis the other two branches of government.

Most Ghanaians know that truncating even a fraction of the powers wielded by the President now would go a long in solving the problems of corruption, clan-based appointments, the mismanagement of the broader economy, and needless to say, the moral degeneration we have witnessed among the ordinary citizenry.

This is the context within which the conduct of the Speaker of the National Assembly, Alban Bagbin, should be evaluated by Ghanaians. While the jury is still out on whether this constitutes a constitutional crisis, it is certainly a constitutional issue that calls for a constitutional review soon to avoid a possible constitutional crisis shortly.

The Speaker is certainly showing leadership by standing up to challenge the encroachment on the powers of the legislative branch by the judicial, and circuitously, the executive branches of government. Yet, practically speaking, the legislative branch of government is the most representative of the thinking and desires of Ghanaians.

The partisan tone of the discourse so far has led to different evaluations of the Speaker’s conduct, but I submit that far from being seen as a villain, Alban Bagbin should be praised by Ghanaians as a hero as far as the sanctity of our democratic credentials is concerned.

As far as I know, in the country’s political history, Alban Bagbin is the first member of the ruling class who has stood up to challenge the 1992 Constitution in this manner and must be recognized as such. The man is a well-qualified and astute lawyer who must be accorded a pride of place in our Constitutional Hall of Fame.

Dr. Acheampong Yaw Amoateng is a Professor of Sociology at the Catholic University, Fiapre, Sunyani. He writes in his personal capacity.