⚽AK_Asantewaa⚽
73.8K posts
⚽AK_Asantewaa⚽
@divaakos
With Isaiah 41:10 as my torch.I'm on a mission to occupy all the street.#Godwin
Stamford Bridge Katılım Ağustos 2011
861 Takip Edilen2K Takipçiler
⚽AK_Asantewaa⚽ retweetledi
⚽AK_Asantewaa⚽ retweetledi
… and the judgement went in @Essynam_’s favour. From the arguments at the bar on that day, this case may just be the latest legal authority on some key constitutional law principles:
(1) Institutional limitation - the idea that public bodies or officials may not exercise more power than the Constitution has given them. Here, Parliament has some power to amend the Constitution, but it, alone, couldn’t amend Article 71 - it shares that power with the people acting through a referendum.
(2) Procedural limitation - the idea that even where public bodies or officials are granted power, they are bound to exercise the power only in accordance with laid down procedures - they can’t exercise anyhow. In this regard, by adding the spouses to the list of Article 71 office holders, Parliament has indirectly amended the Constitution but without following the laid down amendment procedure.
(3) Rule of law - a very complex and evolving concept which has at its heart the idea that the law (rather than man) should rule; and that no man, not even the King, is above the law - ‘quod Rex non debet esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege’. In this regard, Parliament, too, is under the law and may not act outside the limits that the supreme law has imposed on it.
Congratulations, Esinam and team! 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
Justice Srem-Sai@JusticeSremSai
One of the things that senior lawyers do - particularly when a young lawyer has earned their confidence - is to throw the young lawyer into kind of an ambush in a huge court. They’d, usually, simply, tell the young lawyer to go take an adjournment or to deliver a simple message to the court - it is called ‘limited instruction’. On this limited instruction, the unsuspecting young lawyer gets to the court only to be ambushed by the judges - she’d, often, be ordered by the court to conduct the entire business for the day (after all she’s as licensed as the senior lawyer). Now, the test really is this: an illustrious and diligent young lawyer would discharge herself creditably and, thereby, gain her kind of “independence”. An entitled delusional young lawyer would disgrace her/his senior, but not after s/he has disgraced her/himself very thoroughly. This was what happened today. Today was the last sitting day for the Supreme Court. The Justices sat from morning until after 5 pm - no break (these old women and men are really suffering). Now, to the main point: This young lawyer - Ms Essinam Kporku - is just 2 years at the bar. Her senior threw her into the Supreme Court, in a case which was presided over by the CJ herself. That’s not all, the case is a huge constitutional law case involving the proposed ex-gratia payment to the wives of President Akufo Addo and Vice President Dr Bawumia. Her client wants the payment to be declared unconstitutional. Ms Kporku was not only on top of the details of the arguments in the case, she was so confident in her responses to the legion of questions which flew in in no coordinated order from the Justices. She argued her case with such clarity of thought and speech, and with such grace that the entire Court - from the gallery, through the wells, up to the bench flamed up into spontaneous applause for her 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽. The dream of every lawyer, right? She’s earned her repute among her peers. ☺️
English
⚽AK_Asantewaa⚽ retweetledi
⚽AK_Asantewaa⚽ retweetledi
