A Development Fellow in Public Law and Justice, Prof. Stephen Asare, has cautioned courts to avoid construing bright-line rules.

According to him, when the bright lines are messed with, it destroys public confidence in the courts.

Speaking on JoyNews’ Newfile on Saturday, he explained that “Bright-line provisions are those that are framed in such clear terms as to warrant no interpretation or construction.”

He said the Constitution is made up of two provisions namely; broadly framed and bright-line provisions.

“For instance, the Constitution says if you are 18, you have the right to vote under no circumstance should the court say well we know that well if you are 18 you should be allowed to vote but the people from this part of the country are not matured enough therefore purposively they should be allowed to vote when they are 21.

“This happened in the Ayine case where the retirement age is 60 and we have all kinds of games going on. Upholding that somebody who is more than 60 can be appointed to hold office in public service,” he cited.

Prof Asare said the bright-line rules reflect important but settled values therefore “the court must give effect to these bright-line rules without attempting to subject them to broad or purposive interpretation or construction.

“If the Constitution says the voting age is 18, it should mean just that. The people are likely to disbelieve any sophisticated judicial analysis to show otherwise.

“Further, they are likely to view any such sophistry as evidence of judicial partiality and unfairness,” he added.