Kasise Ricky Peprah writes: GBA’s face must be called out – for the record

The Ghana Bar Association's (GBA) recent actions have sparked controversy, with some questioning its commitment to constitutionalism. The assertion that the constitution is a "convenient weapon today and an embarrassing inheritance tomorrow" highlights the apparent inconsistency in the GBA's stance. This inconsistency is further underscored by the Bar's decision to boycott the drafting process of the 1992 Constitution, despite its members being present during its preparation.

The historical record reveals the GBA's condescending attitude towards the process and its disregard for the sanctity of constitutionalism. This behavior seems to suggest that the Bar's true allegiance lies with political convenience rather than the principles of constitutionalism. The GBA's sudden embrace of the constitution, now that power has shifted, raises questions about its true motivations.

It is essential to remember that the constitution belongs to the Ghanaian people, not any specific institution. The Bar's actions must be measured against a standard of consistency, not political expediency. The Bar's role is to uphold the rule of law and defend constitutional safeguards, regardless of the political climate or the preferences of the ruling party.

To do otherwise would undermine the very foundations of democracy. The GBA's history of criticism towards the constitution-making process does not absolve it from scrutiny. Rather, it serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency and accountability. The Bar must be prepared to answer for its actions, both in times of agreement and disagreement with the government.

By doing so, the GBA can solidify its reputation as a guardian of constitutionalism, rather than a pawn in the political game.