I must say I have thoroughly enjoyed the debate on allegiance. It has been based on substance with all sides making insult-free cogent arguments.
This is the way forward in all our conversations and we must cut loose those who seek to poison the stream of ideas with their needless insults, insinuations and innuendo.
Our discussions have proven one thing —- that “allegiance to a country other than Ghana” is a very ambiguous phrase that has no fixed meaning.
Under English common law, everyone who lives in England or its colonies owe allegiance to the King.
Citizens owe natural allegiance by reason of their birth and the protection afforded them.
Non-citizens (aliens) also owe allegiance because they too are protected. Their allegiance is what Blackstone describe as local allegiance. That allegiance is temporary and is only operational while they reside in his majesty’s kingdom.
Even denizens, those granted citizenship by royal charter, owe allegiance because they are protected. So too, of course and for the same reason, naturalized citizens also owe allegiance.
When allegiance is used as a disqualifier in our Constitution, it is addressed only to naturalized citizens. To understand the phrase, one must invest in understanding the common law or its origins.
As Blackstone puts it, naturalization, which can only be granted by an Act of Parliament, puts the naturalized citizen in exactly the same state “as if he had been born in the king’s ligeance; except only that he is incapable, as well as a denizen, of being a member of the privy council, or parliament, etc.”
Thus, Article 94(2)(a) is not addressed to natural born Ghanaians whose allegiance is primitive, virtual, non-divestible and permanent.
Even where they voluntarily swear allegiance to other countries, this act was deemed inchoate and inconsequential in terms of their natural allegiance. This is why the King could impress them into the royal force.
We need to divest this confusing, feudalistic allegiance phrase from the Constitution as Nkrumah did in 1960. Even England that originated it to control the ownership of land has moved away from it.
The requirement to be President and Vice is limited to natural born Ghanaians already. That too is a policy choice based on reserving the highest office to only persons with natural allegiance.
In all cases, let the voters and appintors decide who to lead them with minimum burdens based on demonstrable unlawful activities, such as commital of felony, mental incompetence or other acts of moral turpitude established by a credible Commission.
In no event, must we burden citizenship and disqualify citizens based on speculative wrongdoing.
We must take the citizenship of Ghana seriously. We must think of it not just a status but more important as a basket of rights, primarily political rights, and duties, mainly the duty to defend the Constitution, actively and passively (see Article 3).
This is why I endorse the repeal of Articles 94(2)(a) and 8(2) and their statutory offsprings.
SALL is the cardinal sin of the 8th Parliament.
Da Yie!
By: Lawyer Kwaku Asare aka Kwaku Azar
