A Fellow at the Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), Dr John Osae-Kwapong, has argued that heads of state institutions should not remain in office if they repeatedly preside over actions that violate the Constitution.

Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express on Wednesday, he said accountability for constitutional breaches must extend beyond junior officers to the leadership of public institutions and the authorities that appointed them.

Dr Osae-Kwapong acknowledged that concerns raised by NDC legal team member Abraham Amaliba about separating the administrative conduct of state institutions from politics were valid.

However, he said the issue is complicated because the heads of many state institutions are political appointees.

“Amaliba of the NDC legal team raises a good point on how to separate administrative behaviour of state institutions from politics. The only challenge there is that the heads of these institutions are politically appointed.”

He noted that changes in government often come with changes in leadership at state institutions. According to him, matters become even more politically charged when they involve prominent political figures or former government officials.

“When there is a turnover election, you do see some turnover in who is appointed heads of these institutions, and then it is when the cases involve these high-profile or these politically-exposed persons… All of those things throw in another range and another dynamic that makes it challenging to think of this purely as state administrative behaviour.”

Even so, he stressed that repeated unconstitutional conduct cannot be ignored.

“I agree that if it happens consistently, then we must begin to think about how those administrative behaviours can change.”

Dr Osae-Kwapong warned that the political nature of appointments makes it easy for the public to interpret the actions of state institutions through a partisan lens.

“It also has that political dimension to it that lends itself easily for bystanders to read political meaning into the actions of these administrative officials in our state institutions.”

He said Ghana must find a way to protect appointing authorities from being politically exposed by the conduct of officials they appoint but may not have authorised to act unlawfully.

Responding to a question on whether accountability should rest with officers or their political superiors, Dr Osae-Kwapong insisted responsibility exists at several levels.

“I think there are multiple layers of accountability in all of this.”

He said appointing authorities have a duty to review their decisions if there is a consistent pattern of constitutional violations by the heads of institutions they selected.

“If I have made someone the administrative head of a state institution, but I’m seeing a repeated behaviour of things that offends the constitution, then as the appointing authority, one of the lines of accountability is to say maybe I need to rethink that decision.”

He added that officials who directly supervise such institutions also have a responsibility to intervene.

“Whoever that institution reports to directly also has a certain level of accountability in pulling the person back to say some of these actions are not proper, or they do offend the constitution.”

Still, he maintained that the recurring overlap between politically sensitive cases and election-year transitions continues to blur the line between administrative conduct and political influence.

“But again… it becomes difficult to separate the administrative issues from the political issues.”