Law activist and academician, Prof Stephen Kwaku Asare aka Kwaku Azar has once again penned a position challenging the explanation given by some individuals on the position of the law on dual citizenship.

The outspoken lawyer in his article explained that allegiance is not citizenship.

He says Ghanaians must reject attempts to disqualify any Ghanaian from Parliament because there is no constitutional basis for such disqualification.

According to him, these same politicians opportunistically interpreted allegiance as citizenship, even though a careful reading of the Constitution and common law suggests otherwise.

"Take, for instance, Ghana’s Article 94(2)(a) on allegiance, which was in effect even when the Constitution barred dual citizenship. How does any serious person equate an address to people who owe allegiance to other countries to be the same as an address to a null set?"

"It is an abomination to bar citizens from participating in the political space but if the framers wanted to bar dual citizens then Article 94(2) would have been drafted along the lines of Australia’s section 44(i), which provides that any person who is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, OR is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power.”

Read his article below.

It is universally accepted that a judiciary which reflects the broad diversity of the state enhances public confidence in the administration of justice.



A judiciary that excludes women cannot be trusted by women. One that excludes blacks cannot be trusted by blacks, etc.

As such, there is no country in the world today that disqualifies some of its citizens from being appointed to the courts.

The only exception, that I am aware of, is Ghana where politicians have decided that dual citizens CANNOT be appointed to the Supreme Court.

PAUSE and REFLECT on that. In Ghana, some citizens CANNOT sit on the Supreme Court.

These same politicians opportunistically interprete allegiance as citizenship, even though a careful reading of the Constitution and common law suggests otherwise.

Take, for instance, Ghana’s Article 94(2)(a) on allegiance, which was in effect even when the Constitution barred dual citizenship. How does any serious person equate an address to people who owe allegiance to other countries to be the same as an address to a null set?

It is an abomination to bar citizens from participating in the political space but if the framers wanted to bar dual citizens then Article 94(2) would have been drafted along the lines of Australia’s section 44(i), which provides that

“Any person who is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, OR is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power.”

Section 44(i) speaks of both allegiance and dual citizenship, highlighting their distinction.

Any fair court or serious student of constitutional law will easily distinguish allegiance and citizenship.

But will dual citizens of Ghana get justice from a Supreme Court that they cannot even sit on?

We cannot make noise about the year of return and turn round to susupon natural born Ghanaians who are citizens of other countries.

We like to wear the holy cross around our necks while pocketing a talisman.

The motromojo is too much.

Allegiance is not citizenship. We reject any attempts to disqualify any Ghanaian from Parliament because there is no constitutional basis for such disqualification.

First, they go after dual citizens. Next, they go after #SALL. Then they pocket ex gratia.

Greed, not allegiance, is the enemy.

Da Yie!