Aspects of the 1992 Constitution which indemnify all coups and their deeds since 1966 cannot be the subject of any review, according to an Accra-based lawyer, Mr David Annan. Wading into the constitutional review debate, he claimed that “it is not possible for the review commission to include these clauses in its proposals” and that any attempt to target the indemnity clauses for review would be a waste of time. His reaction followed earlier suggestions that the country might be heading for a national referendum to amend aspects of the Constitution, including some of the entrenched clauses. He said the framers of the Constitution had crafted the procedure for amending the “entrenched provisions”, which must all proceed from acts of Parliament, but Article 37 of the Transitional Provisions made it emphatic that Parliament could not touch the indemnity clauses. “It will be an exercise in futility for the Constitution Review Commission (CRC) to even consider receiving proposals on those particular clauses,” he emphasised. The relevant article provides that, “Notwithstanding anything in Chapter 25 of this Constitution, Parliament shall have no power to amend this section or sections 34 and 35 of this schedule.” Mr Annan argued that since constitutional amendments could only be effected by Parliament, the letter and spirit of that provision was that the indemnity clauses could not be amended. In the May 27 edition of the Daily Graphic, the Executive Secretary of the CRC, Dr Raymond Atuguba, suggested that Ghana might be heading for a national referendum to amend some of the entrenched clauses of the 1992 Constitution. Mr Annan, however, described the effort as “dead in water and a pie in the sky which cannot be reached”. On further processes of amendment, he recalled Chapter 25 Clause 290 (2) of the Constitution, which states, “A bill for the amendment of an entrenched provision shall, before Parliament proceeds to consider it, be referred by the Speaker to the Council of State for its advice and the Council of State shall render advice on the bill within thirty days after receiving it.” On the strength of that provision, he argued that the bill would be “killed from birth” if the Council of State gave contrary advice on it. “If this happens, it means that the bill shall not be gazetted as required by law,” he said. A referendum on that particular clause, he said, required that 40 per cent of the total registered voters should vote on it, with 75 per cent of those voters voting “yes”. Mr Annan said although the review of portions of the Constitution was among the NDC’s manifesto pledges, “the amendment of this particular clause is being pushed by a particular group”. He said given that the New Patriotic Party (NPP) had a core support base of about 30 per cent and the National Democratic Congress (NDC) about 40 per cent, neither party could get the entrenched provisions amended without the support of the other. “Therefore, the NDC cannot, on its own, amend any entrenched clause, whether in power or not,” he said, adding, “This is because 75 per cent means that supporters from both sides must join together in order to meet the required 75 per cent of the 40 per cent.” “All I am saying is that since the indemnity clauses are entrenched provisions, and since there is no NDC member likely to go along with the NPP, any attempt to carry out this is still-born,” he said. Source: The Mail