Fellow Ghanaians, in the Federalist NO. 78, Alexander Hamilton, one of the founding fathers of the Constitution of the United States of America, bemoaned and mocked the Judicial arm of government when he said, “The judiciary….has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment.”

This fundamentally means that the judiciary is the weakest of the other arms of government. But Alexander Hamilton further adduced that, the only time the judiciary appears stronger is when it is being manipulated by the Executive branch of the government. He said, “the judiciary is the least dangerous branch of government vis-à-vis the Executive and the Legislature which control the military and the money respectively leaving nothing for the judiciary to control except its “Judgement”.

The judiciary has nothing therefore to control except its judgment. And this is exactly the case of the Ghana’s chapter of the judiciary. It is the most useless organ prone to misuse and abuse among the three organs of the government. As a result, the only time it appears relevant is when it, at the behest of the Executive, engages in judicial “galamsey” such as the latest shameful “stay of execution” it carried out by nose-poking into the affairs of the Legislature so as to also appear relevant. All in the name of “power of interpretation” which is usually dictated by the Executive branch. Shame!

Growing up with my grandmother, I used to carry her stool to a night Islamic school for elderly and married women. The Malam was brutal in teaching them how to go about doing certain things according to the Islamic teachings and the supplication to say before undertaking them. Example, how to have sex and what to say before meeting your spouse in the other kingdom.

The Dagomba people (I know of), men in particular, have a bad tradition in their approach to sex. No romance, no "four-play", and no kisses. Their particular statement to initiating sexual intimacy with their wives is the infamous "gaafara atooni". Which literally means, "excuse into your private part".

After this wicked statement, they penetrate the “chief” without any fuss. This has landed many brides and women in hospitals the next day after meeting their husbands for the first time on their wedding night. The private part of the woman is often tore due to both uncomfortable and uncontrollable friction! So the Malam was teaching them the importance of four play and caressing in Islam, prior to penetration.

Yes, I was kids but I was always all ears anytime I accompanied my grandmother to that godforsaken night school.

In that night school, you could ask the Malam anything and some asked about cure to certain diseases especially those spiritually inflicted.

One evening, a certain woman brought her gorgeous looking granddaughter to the class and asked the Malam if there was any cure for a grown up lady like her daughter who is bed-wetting? The girl was quite hot.

The Malam looked her up and down and asked her to give him 360 and the young lady turned around and flashed her natural endowments which severely salivated the Malam. He then out of a Freudian slip said, "for this kind of lady I think there's no medicine that can really cure her unless a massive lasting penis so that she will be fucked very well". He said with a very deep voice before realizing he had committed a Freudian slip.

That was the night the night Arabic school collapsed.

The women in utter shock began spitting nauseatingly and running away with their stools and shouting: "khirr peb! Uztaz why did you say that? Khirr peb!" they are spitting.

As religious consumers, even our holy books presumed to becoming from the All-Mighty such as the Holy Qur'an and the Gospel, are self explanatory for the guidance of their followers. It is often in minutest cases we require the explanation of certain verses by clerics.

And guaranteed that most often than not some of these religious clerics have their own sinister motives, like the Malam in the above story, God has made His scriptures very user-friendly and comprehensive so that religious charlatans won't mess with us in obeying the Commandments of God.

For example, nobody requires a cleric for the explanation of the simple message that the Ten Commandments have to offer. It is also clear what the Five Pillars of Islam are all about as well as the Six Articles of faith. They are self explanatory.

For example, Commandments 1, 6 or 7 of the Ten Commandments are very self explanatory when they say, "thou shall not have other gods besides me, you shall not commit adultery", and you shall not steal! respectively.

While it may be okay to seek interpretation for elaborate purposes, every Churchgoer even without faith knows the meanings of the above Commandments without the interpretation of any stomach cleric. It is important to note that the Creator has made these Commandments so self explanatory so that His servants may understand, follow, and implement them in His obedience.

Thus, the fundamentals of the faith through which salvation is attained are made simple to understand. Similarly, whatever that will cause one to astray has been made clear to understand.

This Qur'anic verse captures it vividly when it says,

"It is He Who has sent down to you (Muhammad) the Book (this Qur’an). In it are Verses that are entirely very clear, they are the foundations of the Book [and those are the Verses of Al-Ahkam (commandments, etc.), Al-Fara’id (obligatory duties) and Al-Hudud (legal laws for the punishment of thieves, adulterers, etc.)]; and others (Verses) not entirely clear. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the truth) they follow that which is not entirely clear thereof, seeking Al-Fitnah (polytheism and trials, misleading people, etc.), and seeking for its hidden meanings, but none knows its hidden meanings save Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: “We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord.” And none receive admonition except men of understanding. (Tafsir At-Tabari)"

In the above verse, it's clear that even with the divine scriptures, the fundamentals on right and wrong are clear which do not need interpretation from first sight except those who seek "Fitna" (misleading others and tampering with justice for selfish gains who try to interpret them)

The 1992 Constitution of Ghana was written and adopted as the mother law of the land for a purpose of sensitizing citizens on what to do and what to avoid. And just like the clerics and their interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, the Judicial arm of government was tasked to interpret the Constitution by the Constitution.

logically, it is apparent that the Constitution which is already very clear and self explanatory has taught us to regard the Judicial branch of government as the interpreter of the law. The question is, who interpreted this law which made the Judiciary the interpreter of the law before the Judicial became the interpreter of the law?

Clearly, it was the Constitution itself which tasked the Judiciary to be the law interpreter. It was self explanatory. This means that, there are laws that do not need the courts to be understood just as the law which made the judiciary an interpreter was never interpreted by anybody.

The point is that, the Constitution has laid out laws instructing what other organs of government can do and they do not necessarily need the interpretation of the judiciary in order to do them even though the Judiciary interpret the laws. For example, the Executive branch which is led by the President mandated by the Constitution in Article 70 for Appointments, does not need the Court to interpret the law before he appoints the Commissioner for Human Rights and Administrative Justice and his Deputies.

It will be absurd for the Judiciary to interfere with this role by the President simply because it feels it is the interpreter of the law. Of course, unless there's something untoward in the appointment of these individuals by the President such as reasons of qualifications, conflict of interest etcetera which the Judiciary may step in to direct the President aright as to how he is supposed to carry out his duty of appointments stipulated in the Article 70 of the Constitution.

Now, Article 97 Clause 1 (g) and (h) of the 1992 Constitution states: "A member of Parliament shall vacate his seat in Parliament:

g. if he leaves the party of which he was a member at the time of his election to Parliament to join another party or seeks to remain in Parliament as an independent member; or

h. if he was elected a member of Parliament as an independent candidate and joins a political party." This is a Constitutional injunction about what to do in the House of Parliament if a Member of Parliament decides to leave his political party on which ticket he or she came to the House in order to now become an Independent candidate and the vice versa. Just like the appointment role by the President who is the head of the Executive and does not require interpretation to appoint in Article 70, the Speaker does not need the Court to carry out his role as the Referee of Parliament between Minority and Majority members as indicated by the Constitution in Article 97.

It therefore beats one’s intelligence why the Supreme court decided to “quash” such a ruling by the Speaker. Most disturbing about the issue is how certain previously respected legal luminaries jumped into the fray and gang up with arguably the frailest Supreme court Ghana has ever had against the Speaker of Parliament.

You see, it should be noted that, the 18th century Philosophers and Scholars following the emergence of the modern state and government during the Enlightenment such as John Locke, Baron De Montesquieu among others, segmented the power of the government into three among the three arms of government. And this is what constitutes the principle of Separation of Powers where each of the organs of government has been given a specific power and role to play in running the modern state.

The Judiciary was given the power to interpret the law; the Executive was given the power to enforce the law; and the Legislature was accorded the power to make the law. With the emergence of neo-systems of governments such as neo-presidentialism where in a presidential system of government the Executive is allowed to appoint MPs as ministers as our case in Ghana, the Fourth Estate of the Realm (the Media) has also become a sort of an organ of government as the fourth arm of government.

However, although primarily, these are the specific powers entrusted each of the branches of the government, it was important to ensure there's no abuse of these powers which was exactly what our most shameless Judicial branch did by encroaching upon the legislature. As a result, the doctrine of Checks and Balances was formulated to with wisdom be exercised in order to keep each branch in check as to how it exercises its unique power.

So, the Judiciary has been given the power of judicial review where the judiciary plays the role of a sort of VAR (Video Assistant Referee) to declare ultra vires or null and avoid certain conducts by the legislature and the executive in relation to the use of their powers! And I think the doctrine of the Checks and Balances ought to have been kept by another doctrine. Obviously, both Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances keep each other in check, but it appears when Checks and Balances is abused, there's nothing Separation of Powers can do. And that was exemplified in the case of the Supreme court's stay of execution blowjob in total veneration of the Executive.

Moving forward, the Executive arm also, in the spirit of the doctrine of Checks and Balances, has been given the power of appointment of judges as a way of exercising some "checks and balances" over the Judiciary, and over the legislature has the power to assent bills passed by the lawmakers.

On their part, the legislature vets and approves the appointees by the president and plays an oversight function over the executive in terms of its expenditures. This is why the finance minister goes to Parliament for approval of government expenditures and state transactions.

Aside these obvious roles for each of the organs of government as a way of supervising one another, there are "quasi-roles" where each of them play the primary role of the others. So the Executive can sometimes interpret the law and legislate as in the case of administrative tribunals and enacting of bylaws respectively which allows the Executive to interpret the laws and to enact them. This is called quasi-judiciary or legislature functions by the Executive arm. Where "quasi" means "as if" (judiciary or legislature).

The Judiciary also gets to enact laws as a quasi function by the legislature in relying on judicial precedents where various previous rulings by the courts are relied upon to give verdicts on future cases "enacted" by judges and not members of parliament.

As plain as Article 97 quoted above is, which of these did the Supreme court invoke to exercise that "stay of execution" (judicial review) in reversing the decision by the Speaker of Parliament declaring four parliamentary seats in Parliament vacant?

Don't our elders say if a Tilapia comes out of a pond to claim that the Crocodile has only one eye, it is not appropriate for the Monkey to debate it? And that, if all animals of the wild jungle decides to crown the Elephant as their king, a dolphin has no business with that decision let alone to protest it?

Why then on earth did the Supreme court decide to flex its useless mussels in the name of interpretation of the law about a case so self explanatory about what to do with disloyal MPs enshrined in the Constitution?

It is astonishing that, president Akufo Addo is able to get and appoint people worse than himself to key government positions who are very careless in safeguarding the treasonous interests of his.

That is another evil effect and symptom of bad governance. It is not only what has been done to make a government becomes bad; the worst is usually carried out to protect what has been done already to make the government bad.

Remember Alexander Hamilton.