Former deputy Interior Minister James Agalga has expressed worry that the President's powers to conduct diplomatic transactions could be undermined following the Supreme Court’s declaration that Ghana's admission of two former terror suspects was unconstitutional.

He said for the Supreme Court to order that the admission of the suspects should get parliamentary approval may mean that some sensitive foreign relations and agreement will be made public in the process.

The court stressed that the Mahama government disregarded Article 75 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana when it accepted from the US government,  Mohammed Al-Dhuby and Mohammed Bin-Atef  from Guantanamo Bay in Cuba in January 2016.

Related Article: Supreme Court: Mahama erred in bringing GITMO 2 to Ghana

Article 75 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana states: "a treaty, agreement or convention executed by or under the authority of the President shall be subject to ratification by  an Act of Parliament; or  a resolution of Parliament supported by the votes of more than one-half of all the members of Parliament".

But the former deputy minister said the President relied on a different provision of the constitution which did not require parliamentary approval.

“Our decision has been that the decision did not fall within the remit of Article 75 and when the President did that he did so under Article 73,” he said.

Former President John Mahama

The provision in Article 73 states: "the Government of Ghana shall conduct its international affairs in consonance with the accepted principles of public international law and diplomacy in a manner consistent with the national interest of Ghana".

According to James Agalga, if the President has to keep an eye on securing parliamentary approval for its diplomatic agreements, it will inhibit government from doing "timeous" foreign relations.

Mr Agalga said it is a “time-honoured” practice for the executive to engage his counterparts in other countries without the sanction of Parliament.

He noted the former President’s action has brought some benefits to the country which were missing in the arguments of people who opposed it.

These benefits, he said would be compromised by the court’s decision which described the agreement as illegal.