b.
Distinguish between Constitutional Law and Administrative Law
Constitutional law deals with the fundamental principles and structures of
government, defining the powers and limits of different branches of government and
outlining citizens' basic rights. Administrative law, on the other hand, governs
the activities of administrative agencies and their interactions with individuals
and businesses. It establishes procedures for making and enforcing regulations and
provides mechanisms for challenging administrative decisions. While constitutional
law sets the broad framework, administrative law deals with the detailed
implementation of that framework
c. Explain the difference between a written and unwritten Constitution
A written constitution is a formal, codified document that sets out the fundamental
principles and rules governing a country. It is a single, comprehensive document
that is easily accessible and provides a clear and structured framework for the
government. An unwritten constitution, conversely, is not contained in a single
document but is derived from various sources, including statutes, judicial
precedents, conventions, and traditions. It is less structured and can be more
difficult to interpret, leading to potential ambiguities and inconsistencies. The
UK is a prime example of a country with an unwritten constitution
a. Is Ghana a Monist State? Please provide reasons for your answer
Ghana is not a purely monist state, but rather a mixed or dualist state. A monist
state prioritizes international law over national law, meaning international
treaties automatically become part of domestic law. Ghana's legal system, however,
requires ratification and incorporation of international treaties into domestic
legislation before they have legal effect. This process demonstrates a dualist
approach, where international and national legal systems are distinct and require a
specific act to connect them
Here are further explanations
Option A: A purely monist system would not require this additional step of
incorporating international treaties into national law. International law would
automatically be supreme.
Option B: A dualist system, in contrast, would require a separate act of parliament
to incorporate international treaties into national law. This is the system that
Ghana predominantly follows.
Gauth AI
Explanation:
The Speaker's statement raises a crucial issue concerning the relationship between
the judiciary and the legislature in Ghana's constitutional governance structure.
The statement suggests that the judiciary overstepped its bounds by striking down
Section 43 of Act 1019 without consulting Parliament. This raises questions about
the separation of powers and the role of judicial review in Ghana's constitutional
framework.
Separation of Powers and Judicial Review
Ghana's Constitution establishes a system of separation of powers, with distinct
roles for the executive, legislature, and judiciary. The judiciary's role is to
interpret and apply the law, ensuring that it conforms to the Constitution. This
power of judicial review allows the judiciary to strike down laws that violate the
Constitution
The Speaker's Statement and Constitutional Principles
The Speaker's statement implies that the judiciary should have consulted Parliament
before striking down Section 43. However, this view contradicts the principle of
judicial independence. The judiciary is not subordinate to the legislature and is
not required to seek its approval before exercising its constitutional powers. The
judiciary's primary responsibility is to uphold the Constitution, even if it means
striking down laws passed by Parliament
Constitutional Law Cases
Several constitutional law cases illustrate the principle of judicial independence
and the judiciary's power of judicial review in Ghana
**1. Republic v. Attorney-General (1993)
This case established the principle of judicial review in Ghana. The Supreme Court
held that the judiciary has the power to strike down any law that is inconsistent
with the Constitution
**2. Tsatsu Tsikata v. Attorney-General (1994)
This case further solidified the principle of judicial review. The Supreme Court
upheld its power to review the actions of the executive branch, even if those
actions were based on legislation passed by Parliament
**3. Republic v. High Court (Commercial Division) (2001)
This case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of a law passed by
Parliament. The Supreme Court upheld the principle of judicial review, holding that
the judiciary has the power to strike down any law that violates the Constitution
**4. Ghana Bar Association v. Attorney-General (2004)
This case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of a law that sought to
regulate the legal profession. The Supreme Court upheld the principle of judicial
review, holding that the judiciary has the power to strike down any law that
violates the Constitution
**5. Republic v. Electoral Commission (2012)
This case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of the Electoral
Commission's decision to conduct a presidential election. The Supreme Court upheld
the principle of judicial review, holding that the judiciary has the power to
strike down any decision that violates the Constitution
Conclusion
The Speaker's statement is not accurate. The judiciary in Ghana has the
constitutional power to strike down laws that violate the Constitution, even if
those laws were passed by Parliament. This power of judicial review is essential
for upholding the rule of law and protecting the fundamental rights of citizens.
The judiciary is not required to consult Parliament before exercising its
constitutional powers. The cases cited above demonstrate the judiciary's role in
ensuring that the actions of the executive and legislative branches are consistent
with the Constitution
