Private legal practitioner Justice Abdulai has defended the proposals of the Constitutional Review Committee, stating that its recommendations—particularly those concerning independent constitutional bodies—should be evaluated within the broader objectives of the reform process.
Speaking on Top Story on Joy FM on Wednesday, March 4, he acknowledged that concerns raised by the Civil and Local Government Staff Association, Ghana (CLOGSAG) regarding proposals to grant independence to the Controller and Accountant-General’s Department are legitimate and should not be dismissed as mere criticism.
However, he said he found it difficult to accept attempts to fault the Committee simply because it did not explicitly identify a specific problem with certain constitutional provisions.
According to him, a careful reading of the Committee’s report—chaired by constitutional law expert H. Kwasi Prempeh—shows that the overarching aim of the reform process is to strengthen independent constitutional and administrative bodies.
Justice Abdulai explained that the proposed reforms are guided by several key objectives. These include depoliticising critical state institutions, reducing executive influence in appointments and operational control, ensuring that independent bodies are properly structured to perform their functions effectively, and promoting merit-based appointments rather than political alignment.
He noted that these principles underpin recommendations affecting institutions such as the Controller and Accountant-General’s Department and other constitutional bodies.
Justice Abdulai also emphasised that the constitutional review process was widely consultative, involving extensive stakeholder engagements, open-door discussions, and opportunities for individuals and organisations to submit memoranda over several months.
Given the scale of the participatory process, he argued that it would be unfair to dismiss individual recommendations without considering the broader reform agenda that informed them.
“In the end,” he said, “the report must be judged politically and practically—whether it achieves the purpose.”
