The raging debate on the payment of salaries for presidential spouses in line with Article 71 of the 1992 Constitution has reignited, discussions on the 2011 report of the Constitutional Review Commission (CRC).
The conversation has also brought to the fore, not only an assessment of the White Paper presented to former President John Dramani Mahama on the CRC’s recommendations, but also those made by the five-member Professor Yaa Ntiamoa-Baidu committee set up in June 2019 by President Nana Akufo-Addo to make recommendations on the salaries and other gratuities of Article 71 officeholders.
But the government is under fire after it emerged that, the First and Second Ladies are to receive monthly salaries, which had already been approved by Parliament.
Some Ghanaians are also outraged over the development.
Two suits have already been filed at the Supreme Court to challenge the payments whereas the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC) and the Alliance for Social Equity and Public Accountability (ASEPA), have also served notice of going to court over the same issue.
However, both the First lady, Rebecca Akufo-Addo, and the Second lady, Samira Bawumia have rejected the new emoluments despite the parliamentary approval.
They have both decided to refund all allowances paid to them since 2017, with Mrs. Akufo-Addo already issuing a cheque in that regard.
CRC’s scope of dimension
Issue three of the CRC report centered on conditions of service – emoluments of the Heads and Members of the Independent Constitutional and other bodies [ICBs].
The Commission’s dimensions were “delinking the salaries and allowances of some members of certain ICBs from the salaries and allowances payable to Justices of the Superior Courts, and to determine how to improve the conditions of service of all the heads and members of the ICBs.”
Based on submissions the commission received, it observed that from the practice of most states that the emoluments of the heads and members of the ICBs are put in place with the primary aim to secure the independence of such institutions.
It also observed that by way of constitutional history, this practice can be traced to some of Ghana’s previous Constitutions and that this state of affairs has been retained under the 1992 Constitution.
More importantly, the Commission pointed out that on the broader debate of the propriety of the emoluments paid under Article 71, the discussions have overly focused on the conditions of the President and Members of Parliament to the detriment of the holders of other Article 71 public offices.
The Commission observed that there is an underlying principle of the Constitution that the heads, members, of the three arms of government, and the very important institutions of governance should be treated differently and not subjected to undue ordinariness in return for the high standards and output required of them. Where relevant, such differential treatment is also to safeguard their independence. The salaries and allowances of this class of public servants are expenditures expressed in the Constitution as charges on the Consolidated Fund.
To this end, the Commission stated, however, that Article 71, in its operation, has been very problematic.
It said the provision groups together political/elected officeholders with non-political officeholders. In this sense, the arrangement under Article 71 is rather a disincentive mechanism for determining the salaries of the members of the ICBs and of the other non-elected and non-political Article 71 officeholders.
They receive no gratuities at the end of the 4-year cycle of the Presidency because they generally have unlimited terms. Besides, in practice, except for in-built incremental jumps, when emoluments are determined under Article 71, they remain static until another committee is set up.
The Commission accordingly found that the practice enabled under Article 71 for determining the emoluments of members of ICBs requires a critical assessment.
In this regard was the Commission’s recommendation for the establishment of an Independent Emolument Commission to determine the terms and conditions of service of all public office holders, and considering the recommendation to limit their tenure to a 10-year non-renewable term, it would be desirable to limit ― terms and conditions of service (as differently used) to the manner in which the affected official may be removed from office, and to their retiring awards.
CRC’s recommendations
1. The Commission recommended that the Constitution be amended to establish an Independent Emoluments Commission (IEC) as an independent constitutional body, to determine the emoluments of all public officers including the heads and members of the ICBs.
2. It also recommended that the members of the IEC be appointed by the President, in consultation with the Council of State, and with the prior approval of Parliament.
3. The Commission further recommended that the IEC should be composed of 5 members with professional backgrounds in areas including wages and salary administration, finance and human resource management.
4. Also, as part of the recommendations, was that the functions of the IEC must include the functions of the constitutional committee set up under Article 71 of the Constitution, as well as the functions of the Fair Wages and Salaries Commission.
5. As part of legislative changes, the Commission recommended amendments to the constitutive Acts of the various ICBs as they relate to the terms and conditions of service of members of the ICBs, to conform to the proposed constitutional amendments.
What the White Paper said
In government’s White Paper, it accepted the recommendations of the CRC as follows:
1. A 5-member Independent Emoluments Commission (IEC) be established as an independent constitutional body to determine the emoluments of all public officers, including the Heads and Members of the ICBs.
2. Members of the IEC should be appointed by the President in consultation with the Council of State and with the prior approval of Parliament.
3. The IEC should combine the functions of the Article 71 Committee of Five and those of the Fair Wages and Salaries Commission. Who fixes their emoluments?
The Ntiamoa-Baidu Committee recommendations
The Prof. Ntiamoa-Baidu Committee was to make recommendations in respect of emoluments and other privileges for Article 71 Office Holders as specified under the Constitution, and; to examine any other relevant matter it considered appropriate to its work.
In its report submitted in 2020, it generally recommended that a number of areas regarding the interpretation and implementation of the provisions of Article 71 of the Constitution require clarity to enhance effectiveness and efficiency.
Among other things, it asked parliament to, as a matter of urgency, enact an Act to operationalize and address the fundamental deficiencies in Article 71 of the 1992 constitution, pending a constitutional review.
It also said a permanent independent commission on emoluments should be established to determine the emoluments of Artilce 71 Officer Holders.
Specifically, it recommended that the Spouse of the President and Vice-President be paid a salary equivalent to a cabinet Minister non-MP as currently pertains while in office.
When they are out of office, the payment of salary is equivalent to 80 percent of a Minister of State non-MP if the spouse served one full term or a 100 percent salary of a Minister of State non–MP if the spouse served two or more full terms as VP.