National Petroleum Authority CEO Edudzi Tamakloe has criticised the New Patriotic Party’s decision to challenge the constitutional term-limit provisions at the Supreme Court, arguing that the party is seeking a legal opinion rather than asking the court to resolve a genuine constitutional dispute.
Tamakloe said the Supreme Court was not established to provide legal advice to political parties and individuals who wanted clarity on their concerns.
He referred to an earlier Supreme Court position cautioning litigants against treating the court as a forum for seeking legal advice or opinions.
“The Supreme Court of Ghana is not a forum for seeking legal advice or legal opinion,” he said, recalling the court’s position in the case he identified as Bilson and Rawlings.
Tamakloe argued that parties seeking legal opinions should consult law firms or individual lawyers instead of inviting the country’s highest court to address questions they have not grounded in an actual dispute.
“Legal opinion, you get it from law firms. You get legal opinion from chambers. You pay a lawyer to offer you an opinion, not the Apex Court,” he said on New Day on TV3.
He maintained that the NPP was attempting to package its political fears as a constitutional matter and place them before the court.
“What the NPP is basically doing is to invite all of us to now examine fear that they have conceived in their mind. Now package that fear, political mischief, and put it before the Supreme Court,” he said.
Tamakloe also questioned what specific act or omission had triggered the constitutional challenge, arguing that the party had not identified one.
He said the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 2 was not meant to be invoked simply because a political group wanted the court to clarify a hypothetical concern.
“Where is the live issue? What is the Supreme Court invited to decide? Time and again, the Supreme Court has made it clear that their jurisdiction is only invoked under Article 2 if there is an act or omission by a person,” he said.
“What act of a natural person? What act of a corporate person is being the subject of this disputation? None.”
He consequently argued that the case risked wasting the time of the Supreme Court.
