Lecture Notes: Political Question Doctrine in Ghana

Introduction

• The lecture aims to address the extent to which the political question doctrine applies within the legal framework of Ghana.
• The structure of the essay response includes:
  1. Introduction to the topic.
  2. Explanation of the historical development of the doctrine in the USA via Marbury v. Madison.
  3. Discussion on Baker v. Carr and the established criteria for the doctrine.
  4. Analysis of the application of the doctrine in Ghanaian courts.
  5. Conclusion summarizing key points and presenting an opinion.

Historical Development in the USA

• Marbury v. Madison:
  • Political question doctrine distinguishes between legal questions (decided by the judiciary) and political questions (resolved by political branches).
  • The judiciary should refrain from deciding political questions to avoid intruding on the functions of elected branches.
  • The doctrine is rooted in the principle of separation of powers.

Criteria from Baker v. Carr

• Justice Brennan outlined six criteria indicating a non-justiciable political question:
  1. Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment to a political department.
  2. Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue.
  3. Impossibility of deciding the matter without an initial policy determination.
  4. Court’s inability to independently resolve the issue without disrespecting other government branches.
  5. Need for adherence to a political decision already made.
  6. Risk of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments.
• Any of these criteria, if met, can justify invoking the doctrine.

Application in Ghanaian Courts

• Key Cases:
  1. MPP v. Attorney General:
     • The Supreme Court held the political question doctrine is not applicable in Ghana.
     • Emphasized constitutional supremacy and the court’s role in interpreting political matters if linked to the constitution.
  2. Ghana Bar Association v. Attorney General:
     • Supreme Court recognized the applicability of the political question doctrine in cases constitutionally committed to specific branches.
     • The court identified the need for evaluating whether issues are political questions based on specific constitutional commitments.
  3. J.A. Mensah v. Attorney General:
     • Reaffirmed the doctrine's applicability only if it aligns with constitutional principles.
     • The position suggests a "compromise" approach, applying the doctrine without breaching the constitution.
  4. Justice Abdullahi v. Attorney General:
     • Upheld the court’s mandate to adjudicate all constitutional matters, including political questions, reinforcing constitutional supremacy.
     • Continues to affirm the limited application of the doctrine.

Conclusion

• There is a debate about the applicability of the political question doctrine in Ghana.
• Some cases indicate non-applicability, while others affirm it under specific conditions.
• Opinion: The doctrine should apply only if it conforms to constitutional provisions, maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution of Ghana.

Note: This lecture encourages structuring essays with a clear introduction, thorough explanation of key points, and a concise conclusion. Adjust the structure and style to fit personal preferences and the specific requirements of the question.