[ad_1]
ARTICLE 199 establishes that a public official, unless otherwise provided in this constitution, SHALL withdraw from the public service upon reaching the age of sixty. “It means that if he is 60 years of age or older, he is not qualified to occupy a position. public service.
The Supreme Court has just issued its decision in the case in which Dr. Dominic A. Ayine contested the appointment of Mr. Martin Amidu as special prosecutor.
Dr. Ayine’s problem with the appointment is very simple. That Mr. Martin Amidu is too old to qualify for the appointment as Special Prosecutor. He is alleged to have been 66 years old at the time the case was filed.
The Supreme Court today hardly attributes its reasons to its decisions at the same time as the Court’s decision is issued. In this particular case, the Court’s reasoning is reported to be ready on Thursday, May 14, 2020. Thus, one cannot fully understand what influenced this surprising August court decision in this case. This practice undoubtedly stifles the instant scrutiny and debate of the Court’s decisions, especially when the public’s attention to such scrutiny and debates is at its peak. Interest in legal debates and reforms wanes over time as new breaking stories emerge.
However, I will make some permutations here in an effort to enter the minds of the majority of the judges, who are of the opinion that a 66-year-old is qualified to occupy a position reserved for those under the age of 59.
Article 199 cited above is one of the clearest provisions of the Constitution. Applying what lawyers call AIDS to interpretation to decipher the meaning of article 199 of the constitution is, therefore, a complication of the grammatical construction.
Essentially, the decision of the Supreme Court is that the Office of the Special Prosecutor does not depend on Ghana’s public services, as provided in Article 190.
Therefore, any official who works or is designated as a Special Prosecutor is not part of the public service as provided in Article 190.
The previous statement is general because the Constitution creates exceptions by which public servants / officials can belong to the public service, but are mandated to retire from the age of 60.
Examples of these exceptions are the judges of the Supreme Court who work in the Judicial Service and the president of the Electoral Commission. These officers have their retirement age set at 70 years.
However, unlike these specific exceptions set forth in the Constitution, the Office of the Special Prosecutor is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution as one of the public services or offices that are exceptions to the general rule of retirement age of 60 years.
THE BIG QUESTION IS THEREFORE: WHERE IS THE SUPREME COURT DERIVING THE LEGAL BASIS FOR SAYING ARTICLES 190 AND 199 DOES NOT APPLY TO THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROCESSOR?
We all remember that this office was established by the President under the powers granted by Article 190, so it is strange to say that as an immediate answer to the question posed, Article 190 does not apply to the special prosecutor’s office.
The judicial service is established under article 190, but the retirement age of its officials is an exception to article 199 and has been specifically addressed by the constitution.
It is not the same with the Special Prosecutor and, for this reason, any attempt by any person, including the President, to make an exception to article 199 (60 years of retirement age) will be contrary to article 199 and, therefore, unconstitutional.
This is a simple argument and a problem to solve. As such, I have yet to educate myself on the Supreme Court decision. For now I cry.
