INDEPENDENT INSTITUTIONAL BODIES AND KEY CONSTITUTIONAL

BODIES IN GHANA

Introduction

The foundation of every democratic state lies in the presence of strong institutions

that uphold the principles of good governance, rule of law, transparency,

accountability, and respect for human rights. In Ghana, the 1992 Constitution the

supreme law of the land recognizes the importance of institutional independence in

achieving these democratic goals. As such, it provides for the establishment of various

Independent Institutional Bodies and other Key Constitutional Bodies that operate as

critical organs of state machinery.

These bodies are created not merely to support the functioning of the executive,

legislative, or judicial branches, but to act as autonomous institutions with distinct

responsibilities. Their roles span across several areas including electoral management,

human rights protection, civic education, public service administration, financial

accountability, and more. They are insulated from political interference to allow them

to carry out their mandates with impartiality, objectivity, and professionalism.

Independent institutional bodies such as the Electoral Commission, the Commission

on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), the National Commission for

Civic Education (NCCE), and the Auditor-General serve as watchdogs and

gatekeepers of democracy. They provide necessary checks on the power of the state

and ensure that the rights of citizens are respected. Other constitutional bodies like the

Judiciary, Parliament, the Council of State, and the Public Services Commission,
though not necessarily independent in the same sense, are equally pivotal in ensuring

that governance is conducted in accordance with the Constitution and democratic

norms.

The effectiveness of these institutions significantly impacts the quality of governance

in Ghana. Where these bodies are empowered, adequately resourced, and allowed to

function independently, democracy is strengthened and public trust in the state is

enhanced. Conversely, where their mandates are compromised or weakened, the

nation’s democratic gains risk erosion.

This article delves into the structure, functions, and relevance of Ghana’s Independent

Institutional Bodies and other Key Constitutional Bodies, highlighting how they

contribute to democratic consolidation, accountability, and national development. It

seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of these institutions, the legal

frameworks establishing them, the challenges they face, and their overall impact on

Ghana’s governance landscape.

INDEPENDENT INSTITUTIONAL BODIES

Independent Institutional Bodies are specialized organs established under the 1992

Constitution of Ghana with the explicit mandate to operate autonomously, without

interference or direct control from any of the three traditional arms of government

namely, the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary. This constitutional independence is

not merely symbolic; it is a deliberate design to ensure that these bodies function with

impartiality, free from political influence or manipulation. Their autonomy is often

reinforced by security of tenure for key officeholders, financial independence, and

provisions that restrict arbitrary removal from office.

The rationale behind the creation of these independent bodies stems from the need to

uphold democratic principles and safeguard the integrity of critical state functions. By

insulating these institutions from partisan control, the Constitution aims to promote

objectivity, neutrality, professionalism, and public trust in governance processes.

These bodies often serve oversight, regulatory, investigatory, or advisory roles that

are central to transparency, accountability, and the protection of citizens' rights.

Moreover, independent institutions act as vital checks within the broader framework

of constitutional checks and balances. They serve as watchdogs against abuse of

power, arbiters in conflict resolution, and educators in civic responsibilities. Their

decisions and actions, grounded in constitutional authority, often have far-reaching

implications for democratic consolidation, public administration, and social justice.

Key examples of these independent bodies in Ghana include the Electoral

Commission (EC), which manages elections and ensures their credibility; the

Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), which defends

human rights and investigates corruption and maladministration; the National

Commission for Civic Education (NCCE), which promotes constitutional awareness

and civic responsibility; and the Auditor-General, who audits the public accounts of

government institutions to ensure financial integrity and accountability.

THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF GHANA

The Electoral Commission (EC) of Ghana is a constitutionally mandated body

established to oversee and ensure the integrity of the country’s electoral processes. As

a vital institution under the 1992 Constitution, the EC is responsible for organizing

and supervising elections and referenda, promoting transparency, fairness, and

accountability in governance. The Commission plays a crucial role in maintaining

political inclusivity, safeguarding democratic principles, and ensuring free and fair

elections.

Historically, the EC was first created in 1968 by the National Liberation Council

(NLC) following the overthrow of Kwame Nkrumah, with the goal of facilitating

Ghana’s return to civilian rule. However, its stability was disrupted by subsequent

military regimes in the 1970s and 1980s. A major turning point came with the 1992

Constitution, which established the EC as an independent body tasked with

conducting elections, compiling voters' registers, and educating the public on electoral

matters. Over time, the Commission has embraced modernization, introducing

biometric registration and real-time result transmission to enhance electoral

credibility. Under the leadership of Jean Adukwei Mensa since 2018, the EC has

continued to play a pivotal role in strengthening Ghana’s democratic processes.

Legal and Constitutional Basis

Article 43 of the Constitution establishes the Electoral Commission (EC) and defines

its composition. Article 44 outlines the qualifications and terms of office for its

members, ensuring that they are qualified to carry out the duties of the Commission

effectively. Article 45 lists the functions of the EC, which include conducting

elections, registering voters, and demarcating constituencies. Article 46 guarantees the

independence of the EC, stipulating that it shall not be subject to the direction or

control of any person or authority. Article 51 grants the EC the power to make

regulations for the effective performance of its functions, with such regulations

subject to parliamentary approval. These constitutional safeguards are designed to

protect the Commission from political manipulation and ensure its impartiality in

carrying out its duties.

The operations of the Electoral Commission are further reinforced by several key

pieces of legislation. The Electoral Commission Act, 1993 (Act 451) outlines the

Commission’s structure, functions, and responsibilities, ensuring its independence.

The Representation of the People Law, 1992 (PNDC Law 284) governs voter

registration, the voters' register, and election procedures, ensuring transparency and

fairness in the electoral process. The Political Parties Act, 2000 (Act 574) regulates

the registration and operation of political parties, promoting internal democracy,

accountability, and transparency. Together, these laws strengthen the Commission’s

constitutional mandate and provide a solid legal framework for its operations.

Core Functions and Responsibilities

The EC organizes and supervises presidential, parliamentary, district-level, and unit

committee elections, as well as national referenda when required. Its role ensures the

legitimacy and credibility of elected representatives.

The EC is responsible for compiling a credible register of voters. This includes

periodic registration exercises and cleaning of the register to remove deceased persons

or ineligible voters.

The Commission demarcates the country into constituencies and electoral areas,

taking into account population density, geographical contiguity, and administrative

boundaries.
The EC registers political parties and ensures compliance with requirements such as

open membership, transparent financing, and annual returns.

Though largely shared with the National Commission for Civic Education (NCCE),

the EC also undertakes voter education during elections to improve citizen

participation and reduce invalid votes.

Composition and Structure

The Electoral Commission comprises one Chairperson, two Deputy Chairpersons

(responsible for Operations and Corporate Services), and four other members. These

appointments are made by the President of Ghana in consultation with the Council of

State.

The Electoral Commission (EC) of Ghana operates through a structured

administrative framework, with its national headquarters in Accra overseeing national

elections, policy development, and coordination of regional and district offices. The

headquarters houses senior leadership, including the Chairperson and Deputy

Chairpersons, along with key administrative and technical staff. The EC also

maintains 16 regional offices, responsible for managing electoral matters at the

regional level, such as voter registration, staff training, and election monitoring.

Additionally, over 200 district offices handle local electoral administration, including

polling station management and community outreach. This extensive network ensures

that the EC effectively engages with the public, addresses local challenges, and

upholds free, fair, and transparent elections across Ghana.

Constitutional Independence (Article 46)

The Electoral Commission (EC) of Ghana is a constitutionally independent body

established under Article 46 of the 1992 Constitution, ensuring it operates free from

control by any individual or government branch, thus enabling impartial elections.

This autonomy is reinforced by the security of tenure for its members and financial

independence, although its budget still requires parliamentary approval. These

safeguards protect the integrity and fairness of the electoral process, ensuring the EC

remains free from political interference while being financially accountable.

However, the EC is not exempt from legal oversight, as seen in landmark cases like

Abu Ramadan & Anor v. Electoral Commission & Attorney-General (2016) and Nana

Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo v. John Dramani Mahama & Electoral Commission

(2013). The former case saw the Supreme Court ordering the EC to revise the voters’

register by removing invalid identifications, while the latter upheld the EC's handling

of the 2012 elections but recommended procedural reforms. These cases highlight that

while the EC enjoys independence, it must still adhere to legal standards and

democratic principles to maintain public trust.

Achievements and Innovations

Electoral reforms and technology have significantly improved Ghana's electoral

process, enhancing transparency, credibility, and efficiency. Key innovations like

biometric voter registration, biometric verification, and electronic results transmission

were introduced to tackle issues such as voter fraud, double voting, and delays in

results. These changes have modernized the system, boosting public confidence and

reducing irregularities. Landmark court cases, including Abu Ramadan v. Electoral

Commission, Nana Akufo-Addo v. John Mahama, Zita Okaikoi v. Electoral

Commission, and Electoral Commission v. PPP, have highlighted the need for these
reforms. These cases addressed weaknesses in voter registration, results collation,

voter verification, and results transmission, leading to improvements like biometric

systems and faster, more transparent result reporting. Together, legal rulings and

technological advancements have strengthened Ghana's electoral framework and its

democratic governance.

Challenges and Controversies

Perceptions of Bias

Accusations of political bias have occasionally surrounded Ghana’s Electoral

Commission (EC), primarily due to the President's role in appointing its

Commissioners, leading to perceptions of partisanship, especially during elections.

This was evident during the appointments of Charlotte Osei in 2015 and Jean

Adukwei Mensa in 2018, which sparked scrutiny over their perceived political

affiliations. Such controversies emphasize the need for a more transparent and merit-

based appointment process to enhance the EC’s credibility and public trust.

Electoral Disputes

Election disputes, particularly over election outcomes and the voters' register, have

frequently led to court cases and public unrest, as seen in the 2012 and 2016 elections.

Notably, the Abu Ramadan v. Electoral Commission case raised concerns about the

accuracy of the voters' register, undermining public confidence in the EC. To preserve

electoral integrity, the EC must prioritize transparency, engage the public effectively,

and ensure the credibility of the voters' register.

Logistical Difficulties

Logistical challenges, especially during elections, continue to impede the EC’s

operations. Delays in delivering election materials like ballot papers and voter

verification devices, particularly to remote areas, often disrupt voting. Poor

infrastructure in rural and northern regions exacerbates these issues, affecting the

timely delivery of materials and complicating voter registration. To address these

problems, the EC has adopted solutions like mobile phone-based registration and

solar-powered polling stations, but continued investment in infrastructure, technology,

and training is necessary to ensure efficient and inclusive elections.

Conclusion

The Electoral Commission of Ghana remains a cornerstone of the country’s

democracy. With its constitutional backing, historical resilience, and commitment to

innovation, the EC has contributed significantly to Ghana’s political stability.

However, to further strengthen its credibility, the EC must continue to engage

stakeholders transparently, implement judicial recommendations, and invest in

capacity building. The EC’s role goes beyond administering elections it is central to

the survival and evolution of Ghana’s democratic experiment.

THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR CIVIC EDUCATION (NCCE)

The National Commission for Civic Education (NCCE) is an independent body

established under Articles 231 to 239 of Ghana's 1992 Constitution, created in

response to the country's history of political instability, military coups, and lack of

civic awareness. Prior to the Fourth Republic, Ghana experienced several

authoritarian regimes that limited public participation in governance. The framers of

the 1992 Constitution recognized that a healthy democracy requires an informed and
active citizenry, and thus, provisions were made to establish a permanent institution

dedicated to civic education.

The NCCE, formed in 1993 after the Constitution’s promulgation, aims to educate

Ghanaians about their rights, responsibilities, and the functioning of democratic

institutions. Its goal is to foster a culture of democratic participation, transparency,

accountability, and active citizenship. Through its work, the NCCE seeks to ensure

that citizens are not only aware of the constitutional order but also engage

meaningfully in the political, social, and economic development of the country.

Core Functions and Objectives

Civic and Constitutional Education

The National Commission for Civic Education (NCCE) is crucial to promoting civic

awareness and constitutional education in Ghana. It educates citizens on the 1992

Constitution, democratic governance, rule of law, and their rights and responsibilities

using accessible language, local dialects, and culturally relevant approaches. Through

public forums, media outreach, school programs, and publications, the NCCE

addresses topics like human rights, elections, and national unity. Key initiatives such

as Constitution Week, the Democracy Project, and the Inter-School Civic Challenge

aim to instill democratic values, encourage informed participation in elections, and

empower citizens to hold leaders accountable for national development.

Promotion of Active Citizenship

The National Commission for Civic Education (NCCE) plays a crucial role in

promoting active citizen participation in Ghana’s democratic process through public

forums, community dialogues, and media outreach. It educates citizens on their civic

duties, such as voting, engaging in public discussions, and holding officials

accountable, while focusing on inclusivity for women, youth, persons with

disabilities, and rural populations. The NCCE uses culturally relevant methods like

local languages and community events to make governance topics accessible. It also

encourages participation in local governance, emphasizing the importance of

engaging with Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Assemblies (MMDAs) in

community development. Through campaigns and education, the NCCE fosters a

democratic culture where informed citizens contribute to good governance and

accountability, bridging the gap between the government and the people.

Voter and Electoral Education

During election periods, the National Commission for Civic Education (NCCE) plays

a critical role in ensuring the integrity of the electoral process by educating citizens on

voter registration, ballot procedures, and their rights and responsibilities. In

collaboration with the Electoral Commission (EC), the NCCE conducts widespread

voter education through radio and TV discussions, street campaigns, school visits, and

community forums, often targeting first-time voters. The Commission also addresses

electoral integrity issues such as vote-buying, misinformation, tribalism, and election-

related violence, while promoting peaceful, credible elections. Through partnerships

with traditional authorities, religious leaders, youth groups, and civil society

organizations, the NCCE fosters political tolerance and dialogue, contributing to a

peaceful, transparent, and democratic election process in Ghana.

Promoting National Unity and Peace

During election periods, the National Commission for Civic Education (NCCE) plays

a vital role in promoting credible, peaceful, and inclusive elections in Ghana by

conducting extensive voter education campaigns. In collaboration with the Electoral

Commission (EC), the NCCE informs citizens about the electoral process, their voting

rights, and responsibilities through community forums, workshops, media broadcasts,

social media, and educational materials in local languages. The NCCE emphasizes

procedural guidance, particularly for first-time voters, marginalized groups, and

persons with disabilities, while also addressing broader electoral issues like vote-

buying, misinformation, and electoral violence. It promotes political tolerance, peace,

and unity through campaigns and works with various stakeholders to ensure non-

violent elections and post-election reconciliation. By empowering citizens with the

knowledge to vote responsibly and peacefully, the NCCE helps build trust in Ghana's

democratic processes and contributes to free and fair elections.

Strategies and Outreach Mechanisms

The National Commission for Civic Education (NCCE) operates through a

decentralized network of offices across all 16 regions and over 260 districts in Ghana,

ensuring broad accessibility to civic education, even in remote areas. This grassroots

presence allows the Commission to directly engage with community members,

fostering trust and understanding of local issues. It adapts its educational strategies to

regional contexts, often using local languages and culturally relevant methods such as

storytelling and folk music to enhance accessibility, particularly for populations with

low literacy. Additionally, the NCCE collaborates with local authorities, religious
leaders, and civil society groups, ensuring that its programs address community-

specific needs and emerging issues like misinformation or civic apathy. This

decentralized model is central to the Commission’s success in promoting active

citizenship, social cohesion, and strengthening Ghana's democratic foundations.

Collaboration with Stakeholders

The National Commission for Civic Education (NCCE) collaborates with various

stakeholders, including educational institutions, media organizations, civil society

groups, and traditional authorities, to enhance its civic education efforts. In the

education sector, the NCCE works with schools and teacher training colleges to

incorporate civic and constitutional education through initiatives like civic clubs,

debates, and quizzes, aiming to instill democratic values and leadership skills among

the youth. The media, especially radio and television, plays a crucial role by

broadcasting civic education programs in both national and local languages, reaching

even remote areas.

Civil society organizations (CSOs) assist the NCCE in organizing workshops and

public campaigns on topics like voter education, gender equality, and human rights,

broadening the reach and effectiveness of its programs. Traditional authorities,

including chiefs, are key partners in rural areas, helping to disseminate information

and encourage civic participation. Through these partnerships, the NCCE expands its

outreach and resources, creating a network of civic-minded institutions across Ghana,

and ensuring the sustainability and impact of its civic education efforts.

Challenges and Impact

The National Commission for Civic Education (NCCE) plays a vital role in promoting

civic education and democratic values in Ghana. However, the Commission faces

significant operational challenges, particularly inadequate and inconsistent funding.

As a public institution dependent on government allocations, the NCCE often

struggles with limited financial resources, leading to delays in budget releases and

restricted program implementation, especially during critical periods like elections.

Additionally, logistical constraints, including a lack of vehicles, outdated educational

materials, and insufficient office infrastructure, hinder the Commission's ability to

reach remote areas and effectively carry out its mandate.

Further complicating its efforts, the NCCE faces low civic engagement in certain

communities, particularly where there is political disillusionment or mistrust of public

institutions. Challenges such as poverty, low literacy rates, and the influence of social

media on younger populations also reduce participation in civic education initiatives.

Moreover, the rise of misinformation, particularly on digital platforms, exacerbates

the difficulty of educating the public effectively. Despite these obstacles, the NCCE

remains committed to its mission, but greater institutional support is necessary,

including increased funding, improved logistics, and modern communication tools, to

enhance its capacity and impact on democratic participation in Ghana.

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE

(CHRAJ)

The Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) is a critical

institution in Ghana’s democratic governance framework, mandated to promote

human rights, combat corruption, and ensure administrative justice. Established under
the CHRAJ Act, 1993 (Act 456) and reinforced by Article 218 of the 1992

Constitution, CHRAJ serves as an independent investigative body tasked with

protecting citizens against human rights violations, abuse of public office, and

administrative injustices. As a national human rights institution, CHRAJ also aligns

with international human rights standards, including the Paris Principles on National

Human Rights Institutions (UN General Assembly, 1993).

Functions of CHRAJ

CHRAJ plays a multifaceted role in Ghana’s governance, with responsibilities

spanning human rights enforcement, anti-corruption efforts, and administrative

justice. As a national human rights institution, CHRAJ is tasked with investigating

human rights violations, discrimination, and abuses of power by both public and

private entities. The commission provides legal aid, mediation, and public education

on human rights issues to ensure that vulnerable groups receive adequate protection.

In Azu v. Electoral Commission (2000), CHRAJ intervened when a voter was

unlawfully denied access to register, ruling that the Electoral Commission had

violated the complainant’s constitutional rights. CHRAJ’s role extends to ensuring

equal access to public services and addressing workplace discrimination, particularly

in cases related to gender, disability, and child labor rights (CHRAJ Annual Report,

2021).

In addition to human rights protection, CHRAJ also investigates allegations of

corruption and conflicts of interest involving public officials. Under Article 218(e) of

the 1992 Constitution, the commission has the power to probe wealth declarations of

public officials and investigate the misuse of state resources. A notable case was
Republic v. Anas & Others, Ex Parte Abuga Pele (2018), where CHRAJ’s findings

contributed to the conviction of public officials involved in financial mismanagement

under the GYEEDA scandal, exposing systemic corruption in government agencies.

By undertaking such investigations, CHRAJ plays a crucial role in ensuring

accountability and promoting ethical governance.

Furthermore, CHRAJ is responsible for ensuring fairness and transparency in public

administration by investigating instances of abuse of power, unfair dismissals, and

unjust decisions by public officers. In Appiah v. Ghana Education Service (2014),

CHRAJ ruled that a teacher was unfairly dismissed without due process, leading to

reinstatement and compensation. By holding public institutions accountable for their

actions, CHRAJ strengthens citizen trust in government institutions and promotes the

rule of law (Mensah, 2022). These functions collectively underscore CHRAJ’s

significance in fostering justice, accountability, and transparency in Ghana’s

governance system.

Challenges and Limitations

The Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), despite its

broad constitutional mandate to investigate corruption, human rights violations, and

administrative injustices, faces several institutional and operational challenges that

limit its effectiveness. A key limitation is its lack of prosecutorial powers, which

forces it to refer cases to the Attorney General’s Office or the Economic and

Organized Crime Office (EOCO) for prosecution often resulting in delays or

politically influenced outcomes. This was evident in the Republic v. Richard Anane

(2006) case, where CHRAJ found conflict of interest but could not enforce criminal
charges. Additionally, political interference, especially in high-profile cases like

Republic v. PPA CEO (2020), weakens CHRAJ’s independence and undermines

public confidence in its ability to ensure accountability.

Moreover, CHRAJ faces severe funding constraints that hinder its operations. As a

state-funded body, it struggles with limited resources, making it difficult to carry out

investigations, hire skilled personnel, and run outreach programs effectively.

According to its 2022 budget report, over 40% of its regional and district offices are

under-resourced, affecting their performance. In cases like Republic v. Ghana Police

Service (2019), investigations were delayed due to financial and logistical limitations,

ultimately affecting justice delivery and victim support. These structural and financial

barriers, coupled with political interference, significantly constrain CHRAJ’s ability

to fulfill its role as Ghana’s primary institution for promoting human rights and

fighting corruption.

Conclusion

The Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) plays an

essential role in safeguarding human rights, promoting good governance, and fighting

corruption in Ghana. However, limited enforcement powers, resource constraints, and

political interference undermine its effectiveness. Landmark cases such as Republic v.

Richard Anane (2006) and Republic v. PPA CEO (2020) underscore the urgent need

for institutional reforms. Strengthening CHRAJ’s legal mandate, granting it

prosecutorial powers, and increasing its resources will enhance its ability to uphold

justice, accountability, and transparency in Ghana’s governance system.

OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR-GENERAL

Constitutional Mandate

The Office of the Auditor-General, established under Article 187 of Ghana’s 1992

Constitution, plays a vital role in promoting transparency and accountability in the use

of public funds. Its core mandate is to audit the public accounts of the government and

report its findings to Parliament. To ensure impartiality and effectiveness, the

Constitution guarantees the Auditor-General’s independence, shielding the office

from political interference and allowing it to function as a neutral body focused on

upholding financial integrity.

Beyond basic audits, the Auditor-General conducts in-depth examinations of

government ministries, departments, agencies, and state-owned enterprises. The office

submits comprehensive reports to Parliament, which reviews the findings and may

initiate corrective actions. These reports not only help identify and address financial

mismanagement or corruption but also enable Parliament to hold the government

accountable for its fiscal decisions.

Functions and Powers

The functions of the Auditor-General are broad and designed to ensure the responsible

management of public funds:

Auditing Public Accounts: The office’s primary responsibility is to audit the financial

statements of all public bodies, including ministries, departments, and state-owned

enterprises, to ensure they comply with laws, regulations, and best practices.
Reporting to Parliament: After conducting audits, the Auditor-General is required by

the Constitution to submit a comprehensive report to Parliament. This process ensures

that Parliament is informed about the financial health of the nation and any potential

misuse or mismanagement of public resources.

Investigating Misuse of Public Funds: The Auditor-General has the constitutional

authority to investigate and act upon any cases of misuse or mismanagement of public

funds. It can hold public institutions and officials accountable for financial

irregularities.

Ensuring Transparency and Accountability: Through its audits and subsequent

reports, the Auditor-General plays a critical role in ensuring that public funds are

spent appropriately and for the intended purposes, thus enhancing public trust in

government operations.

Legal and Institutional Framework

The Auditor-General is supported by legislation such as the Public Audit Act, 2000

(Act 584), which provides a framework for the conduct of audits and specifies the

powers and responsibilities of the Auditor-General. This legislation ensures that the

office has the authority and legal backing to carry out its mandate. The Constitution

and the Public Audit Act collectively ensure that the Auditor-General can act without

interference, maintaining a high standard of accountability in public finance.

Case Law Related to the Auditor-General’s Functions

The Office of the Auditor-General in Ghana has been central to several landmark

legal cases that have strengthened its constitutional role and affirmed its

independence. In Republic v. Auditor-General (2001), the Supreme Court upheld the

office’s autonomy, ruling that it must operate free from executive interference. This

affirmed the Auditor-General’s authority to carry out audits without influence from

any other state institution. In Attorney-General v. Auditor-General (2012), the Court

further clarified that the Auditor-General had the constitutional power to audit all

public contracts, reinforcing its oversight role in ensuring transparency and

accountability in government procurement processes.

Another significant ruling came in Republic v. Attorney-General, Ex Parte Auditor-

General (2019), where the Supreme Court confirmed that the Auditor-General could

compel the Attorney-General to act on its audit findings. This emphasized that the

office's reports must lead to legal and corrective actions, not just public disclosure.

Together, these cases have fortified the office's independence and operational

capacity, confirming its critical role in safeguarding public resources, promoting

financial accountability, and strengthening democratic governance in Ghana.

Challenges Facing the Auditor-General’s Office

Despite the constitutional and legal protections, the Office of the Auditor-General

faces several operational challenges that hinder its ability to fully discharge its duties:

Limited Resources: The Auditor-General’s office often operates under financial

constraints, which impede its ability to conduct thorough audits across all public

institutions. The office requires more funding and logistical support to meet its

responsibilities effectively.
Political Interference: Although the Auditor-General is constitutionally independent,

there are instances where political pressures have been exerted to influence or

suppress the office’s findings, particularly when sensitive government activities are

being audited.

Enforcement of Audit Findings: While the Auditor-General can report its findings to

Parliament, the actual enforcement of these recommendations is sometimes slow, and

there may be reluctance or lack of political will to take action on the findings.

Conclusion

The Office of the Auditor-General is a fundamental pillar of Ghana’s financial

governance and accountability. Its independence, as guaranteed by the Constitution

and reinforced by various court rulings, ensures that public resources are managed

responsibly and transparently. Despite operational challenges, the office plays an

essential role in strengthening the nation’s democracy by holding the government

accountable and ensuring that public funds are used appropriately. The Auditor-

General remains a vital institution for promoting good governance and financial

discipline in Ghana.

OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR (OSP)

The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) is an independent body established to

combat corruption in Ghana by investigating and prosecuting cases involving public

officers, especially those suspected of engaging in corrupt practices. The creation of

this office was a significant step in Ghana’s efforts to address corruption and improve

transparency in public service. Although the OSP was not initially part of the 1992
Constitution, it aligns with the constitutional principles of accountability, good

governance, and the protection of public trust.

Mandate

The primary mandate of the Office of the Special Prosecutor is to investigate and

prosecute corruption-related offenses involving public officials, state agencies, and

private individuals who engage in corrupt acts that undermine the public interest. The

OSP focuses on holding those in positions of power and influence accountable for any

acts of bribery, embezzlement, fraud, and other forms of corruption. It also has the

authority to investigate not only current but also past officials, ensuring that

corruption in public office is addressed in all forms.

The OSP is empowered to act on referrals from other government agencies, and its

investigative scope extends to both state and private sector entities that may have

engaged in corrupt practices involving public funds or public contracts. One of the

office's key roles is to provide an independent and impartial investigation of

corruption allegations, without fear or favor, and ensure that corrupt individuals are

held accountable under the law.

Additionally, the OSP is tasked with safeguarding public resources, supporting

reforms aimed at enhancing transparency in government operations, and making

recommendations to prevent corruption in the future. By undertaking these roles, the

OSP works as a critical mechanism for restoring public confidence in governmental

institutions and promoting a culture of accountability in Ghana’s public sector.

Legal Basis
The legal basis for the establishment of the Office of the Special Prosecutor is found

in Act 959, which was passed by the Parliament of Ghana in 2017. This Act provides

the framework within which the OSP operates and defines the scope of its powers,

including the authority to prosecute corruption offenses, request documents, and

summon individuals for questioning. Though it was not included in the original 1992

Constitution, the creation of the OSP through Act 959 supports the constitutional

goals of accountability and transparency in public administration.

Act 959 establishes the OSP as an autonomous institution, with its own budget and

leadership structure, ensuring that it can function independently from political

influence. The law also ensures that the Special Prosecutor appointed to head the

office is not subject to undue political interference, providing a safeguard for the

office’s impartiality. This autonomy is essential for the OSP’s effectiveness in

tackling corruption, as it must operate free from the pressures that often accompany

political office.

The Act also grants the Special Prosecutor powers to initiate investigations without

requiring a direct complaint, allowing for proactive action in addressing corruption.

This proactive mandate reflects the commitment of the Ghanaian government to

combat systemic corruption by focusing on prevention and deterrence, rather than

waiting for allegations to be brought forward by other parties. The office is also

empowered to investigate cases related to procurement fraud, financial

mismanagement, and illegal dealings involving public funds.

Role in Accountability and Transparency

The OSP plays a crucial role in reinforcing the core constitutional principles of

accountability and transparency. By providing a dedicated body for investigating and

prosecuting corruption, the OSP strengthens the overall anti-corruption framework in

Ghana. Its establishment signals the government's commitment to confronting

corruption at all levels of governance. Furthermore, the office’s work contributes to

the broader goal of improving governance and reinforcing the rule of law, which are

fundamental to the success and stability of Ghana’s democracy.

The OSP’s independence is essential in ensuring that it operates without fear of

political repercussions. This autonomy allows the office to pursue investigations in a

manner that prioritizes justice and the public interest over political considerations.

Additionally, the OSP’s transparent operations and focus on prosecuting high-profile

corruption cases help to deter potential wrongdoers and set a precedent for

accountability in government.

Furthermore, the Office of the Special Prosecutor works in collaboration with other

bodies such as the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice

(CHRAJ), the Auditor-General, and the Economic and Organized Crime Office

(EOCO). This inter-agency collaboration ensures a comprehensive approach to

tackling corruption, with each institution contributing its expertise and resources to

the fight against graft. In this way, the OSP serves as an integral part of Ghana's

broader anti-corruption strategy.

Challenges and Achievements

Despite its importance, the Office of the Special Prosecutor has faced challenges

related to its funding, the capacity of its staff, and the political and public expectations
surrounding its work. Funding for the office has sometimes been inadequate, limiting

its ability to carry out thorough investigations. Additionally, political influence and

public pressure can complicate the work of the OSP, particularly when high-profile

cases involve powerful individuals or political figures.

Nevertheless, the OSP has made notable strides in prosecuting corruption cases,

including the successful investigation and prosecution of several public officials and

private individuals involved in financial malfeasance. By holding individuals

accountable for corruption, the OSP has contributed to a broader culture of

accountability, where public servants understand that corrupt behavior will not go

unchecked.

Conclusion

The Office of the Special Prosecutor represents a significant step forward in Ghana’s

ongoing battle against corruption. Its legal independence, mandate to prosecute

corruption-related offenses, and commitment to transparency are vital to ensuring that

the principles of accountability and good governance are upheld. While challenges

remain, the office has proven to be an essential tool in the fight against corruption and

an important pillar in Ghana’s democratic framework. By continuing to strengthen the

OSP and supporting its operations, Ghana can enhance its efforts to create a

transparent, accountable, and corruption-free government.

KEY CONSTITUTIONAL BODIES

Beyond the explicitly independent institutions, Ghana’s 1992 Constitution establishes

several other key constitutional bodies that are integral to the governance structure.
Although these bodies are not always described as "independent" in the same legal

sense, they perform essential constitutional functions and enjoy a level of autonomy

necessary for the effective performance of their duties. These institutions ensure that

the democratic framework functions properly and that there is separation of powers

among the arms of government.

COUNCIL OF STATE

The Council of State is a constitutionally mandated advisory body to the President of

Ghana. Its main function is to offer counsel to the President in the discharge of his

duties, especially on matters of national importance. While the advice provided by the

Council is not legally binding, the 1992 Constitution mandates that the President

consults it before making specific key appointments. These include roles such as the

Chairperson of the Electoral Commission, the Auditor-General, and other significant

public officials.

The Council's composition reflects a blend of institutional experience and regional

representation. It includes the former Chief Justice, former Chief of Defence Staff,

former Inspector-General of Police, the President of the National House of Chiefs,

eleven members appointed by the President, and ten regional representatives elected

from each of Ghana’s regions. The legal foundation for the Council is found in

Articles 89 to 92 of the 1992 Constitution. As an institution, the Council of State

plays a vital role in bridging state governance and traditional authority, offering

seasoned and non-partisan guidance in national decision-making.

PARLIAMENT OF GHANA
The Parliament of Ghana is the legislative arm of government, holding the sovereign

law-making authority of the Republic. As a cornerstone of Ghana’s democratic

system, Parliament ensures representation for the people, deliberates on national

issues, and enacts laws to promote peace, order, and good governance.

Its core functions include legislating, overseeing the Executive through various

committees (notably the Public Accounts Committee), approving the national budget,

ratifying international treaties and loans, and vetting presidential appointees.

Parliament is a unicameral legislature made up of elected Members of Parliament

(MPs) and is presided over by a Speaker. Its legal foundation is provided under

Chapter 10, Articles 93 to 122 of the 1992 Constitution. As a vital democratic

institution, Parliament plays a key role in ensuring transparency, accountability, and

effective checks and balances in Ghana’s governance.

JUDICIARY

The Judiciary of Ghana is responsible for the interpretation, enforcement, and

application of the laws of the country, including the Constitution itself. As an

independent body, it is entrusted with administering justice without fear or favor,

ensuring that the rule of law is upheld.

The Judiciary is structured under the leadership of the Chief Justice and includes the

Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Courts, Circuit Courts, and District Courts.

The Supreme Court stands as the highest court in the land, with the ultimate authority

on constitutional interpretation.
The Judiciary has several key functions. One of the primary functions is judicial

review, where it has the power to declare laws or executive actions unconstitutional. It

also engages in dispute resolution, handling civil, criminal, constitutional, and

administrative cases. Additionally, the Judiciary resolves election petitions,

adjudicating disputes related to presidential and parliamentary elections. Another

important function is the protection of rights, where it ensures the enforcement of

fundamental human rights as guaranteed by the Constitution.

The legal foundation of the Judiciary is set out in Chapter 11, Articles 125–161 of the

1992 Constitution. This provides the legal framework for its operations and functions.

The Constitution also guarantees the independence of the Judiciary, ensuring that

judges enjoy security of tenure, financial independence, and are insulated from

political interference. This independence allows the Judiciary to deliver justice

impartially, without external influence.

As the guardian of the Constitution and the rule of law, the Judiciary serves as a

critical check on the powers of both the Executive and Legislature. It ensures that no

one is above the law and that the rights of all citizens are protected.

NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS

The National House of Chiefs (NHC) is a constitutional body established under

Articles 270 to 277 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana. Its primary function is to

promote and preserve the customs, traditions, and cultural heritage of the various

ethnic groups in Ghana. The NHC also advises the government and the judiciary on

the application of customary law and works alongside regional and local traditional
houses. These regional and local bodies ensure that the interests of different cultural

groups across Ghana are represented, creating a cohesive platform for traditional

leaders to play an active role in national governance.

Composition of the National House of Chiefs

The National House of Chiefs comprises:

Traditional rulers from across Ghana, including paramount chiefs, regional chiefs, and

other influential traditional leaders recognized by their communities.

Representatives from regional and local houses, ensuring that the diversity of ethnic

and traditional groups is represented at the national level.

Elected officials: The President and Vice President of the NHC are elected from

among the members to coordinate its activities.

Functions and Mandates

The National House of Chiefs plays several vital roles that contribute to Ghana’s

governance and cultural preservation:

Promotion and Preservation of Customs and Traditions

The NHC is primarily tasked with ensuring that Ghana's rich traditions and cultural

practices are maintained. This includes overseeing the protection of customary law,

which governs matters such as land rights, inheritance, marriage, and dispute
resolution. The NHC plays a central role in safeguarding traditional values and

practices that have shaped the social fabric of the nation for centuries.

Advisory Role on Customary Law

The NHC’s advisory role is significant when it comes to the interpretation and

application of customary law, which operates alongside statutory law in Ghana. The

House provides advice to the judiciary, particularly in cases where customary law is

in conflict with statutory law. For instance, in Kwaku Adjei v. Ghanem (1999), the

Supreme Court considered customary law principles, and the NHC provided input to

ensure that the court's decision respected Ghanaian cultural practices.

Mediation and Conflict Resolution

The NHC also serves as a mediator in chieftaincy disputes and land conflicts,

particularly in situations where customary laws are at odds with modern legal

frameworks. The NHC is often called upon to arbitrate disputes related to chieftaincy

titles or land ownership, thereby playing a crucial role in maintaining peace and unity

among communities. In Asare v. Amoako (2008), the NHC was involved in advising

on a chieftaincy dispute, emphasizing the importance of customary law in resolving

such conflicts.

Advocacy and Representation of Traditional Interests

The National House of Chiefs serves as an advocacy body, representing the interests

of traditional authorities at the national level. It lobbies on behalf of traditional

leaders, ensuring that their perspectives are considered in national decision-making,

particularly on issues that directly affect their communities, such as land management,

local governance, and cultural preservation.

Structure of the National House of Chiefs

The National House of Chiefs operates with a clear structure to facilitate its work:

President and Vice-President: These individuals are elected from among the members

and preside over the meetings of the House, ensuring smooth operations and decision-

making processes.

Regional Representatives: Chiefs from each of Ghana's 16 regions elect

representatives to the National House, ensuring that the interests of all regions are

heard and addressed at the national level.

Committees: The NHC has various committees that focus on specific issues such as

land disputes, customary law, and cultural preservation, allowing the House to tackle

pressing matters efficiently.

Role of Regional and Local Traditional Houses

In addition to the National House, Ghana also has Regional Houses of Chiefs and

Local Traditional Houses. These bodies are responsible for addressing matters at the

regional and local levels, ensuring that traditional interests are adequately represented

and preserved in every part of the country.

Regional Houses of Chiefs: Each of Ghana’s 16 regions has its own Regional House

of Chiefs, which represents regional ethnic groups and works in tandem with the

National House to address regional concerns.

Local Traditional Houses: These include district and local chiefs who are responsible

for the day-to-day administration of their respective communities, and they are the

first point of contact for resolving local disputes, particularly those related to land or

customs.

Interaction with Government and Other Institutions

The National House of Chiefs engages in a consultative process with other

government bodies such as Parliament, the President, and the Judiciary to ensure that

traditional perspectives are incorporated into the nation’s governance. Through these

consultations, the NHC helps reconcile the traditional values and statutory laws in

Ghana's evolving democracy. The House's advisory role is crucial, especially in

matters such as land reforms or national development planning, where traditional

knowledge and customary law can provide valuable insights. For example, in the case

of The Republic v. The National House of Chiefs (2010), the NHC advised on a land

dispute between a chief and the government over land usage rights, with the court

taking customary law into account when making its ruling.

Challenges and Opportunities

While the National House of Chiefs plays an indispensable role in Ghana’s

governance, several challenges persist:

Modernization vs. Tradition: Striking a balance between the demands of modern legal

systems and traditional cultural practices can be challenging. For example, in the case

of Akyeampong v. The Republic (2002), the issue of customary inheritance law

clashed with statutory laws on gender equality, raising questions about the role of the

National House of Chiefs in reconciling these two systems.

Resource Constraints: The NHC often faces challenges in securing adequate funding

and logistical support, which hampers its ability to fulfill its mandate effectively.

Conflict within Traditional Leadership: Disputes over chieftaincy titles and

succession within traditional structures can undermine the NHC’s authority and its

ability to mediate effectively. The case of Owusu-Ansah v. The Republic (2015)

highlighted how internal conflicts within traditional leadership can affect the broader

governance process.

Despite these challenges, the National House of Chiefs has significant opportunities to

strengthen its role by improving its engagement with modern governance structures,

addressing disputes more effectively, and securing more resources for its activities.

Conclusion

The National House of Chiefs, along with regional and local traditional houses, plays

a vital role in ensuring that Ghana’s rich cultural heritage is preserved while

contributing to national governance. By advising on customary law, mediating

conflicts, and advocating for traditional interests, the NHC ensures that traditional

authority remains a relevant and respected part of Ghana’s democratic process. While

facing challenges, the NHC’s continued relevance in Ghana's governance framework

is essential for maintaining a balance between modern legal systems and traditional

governance. Through collaborative efforts, it is poised to make meaningful

contributions to the ongoing development of the country.

THE NATIONAL MEDIA COMMISSION

The media plays a central role in any democracy, serving as the fourth pillar of

governance by ensuring transparency, accountability, and the free flow of

information. In Ghana, the National Media Commission (NMC) is entrusted with the

responsibility of safeguarding media freedom while ensuring ethical journalism

practices. The NMC ensures that the media operates in a manner consistent with the

principles of democracy and good governance, promoting the independence of the

press while regulating its content. This essay explores the legal framework, functions,

and limitations of the National Media Commission, highlighting its impact on media

regulation in Ghana.

Legal Framework of the National Media Commission

The National Media Commission derives its legal mandate primarily from the 1992

Constitution of Ghana and is further reinforced by the National Media Commission

Act, 1993 (Act 449). These legal provisions grant the NMC its powers and outline the

scope of its responsibilities. The 1992 Constitution provides the foundational legal

structure for the NMC, with Articles 166 to 173 detailing the formation, mandate,

powers, and functions of the Commission. Article 166 establishes the NMC as an

independent body, tasked with promoting media freedom and regulating the conduct

of media institutions. Article 167 enumerates the key responsibilities of the NMC,

including the registration of newspapers, monitoring journalistic practices, and

addressing complaints regarding media misconduct. Additionally, Article 168 outlines

the composition of the NMC, ensuring that it is composed of diverse members, while

Article 169 provides the NMC with the responsibility of ensuring the independence of

the media from government interference. These constitutional provisions ensure that

the NMC operates as an autonomous entity, free from government or political

interference, upholding the fundamental principle of a free press in a democracy.

In addition to the constitutional provisions, the National Media Commission Act,

1993 (Act 449) further defines the powers and responsibilities of the NMC. The Act

grants the Commission the authority to register media houses, establish and enforce

codes of conduct for journalists, investigate complaints from the public regarding

unethical media conduct, and resolve disputes between media outlets and aggrieved

parties. While the NMC has the authority to regulate media content, it is important to

note that it does not have the power to impose direct legal sanctions on media houses.

Judicial decisions have clarified the role of the NMC, with cases such as Republic v.

National Media Commission (1996) affirming the NMC’s role in protecting media

freedom and regulating its operations. Another important case, Ekwow Spio-Garbrah

v. Ghana Broadcasting Corporation (2000), highlighted the NMC’s right to ensure

media organizations adhere to the standards and regulations outlined in the National

Media Commission Act. These cases underscore the NMC’s responsibility to enforce

ethical standards in media reporting.

Functions of the National Media Commission

The NMC plays a crucial role in regulating media content and ensuring responsible

journalism practices. Its core functions include the protection of media freedom,
regulation of media content and practices, mediation and conflict resolution, and the

registration of media outlets. The primary function of the NMC is to safeguard the

freedom of the press, ensuring that media houses operate without undue interference

from the government or powerful entities. This is vital in promoting democracy, as a

free and independent media sector fosters transparency and accountability in

governance. The NMC also monitors media houses to ensure compliance with ethical

standards, investigating complaints from the public regarding issues such as

defamation, misinformation, and bias. By ensuring that media outlets respect

individuals’ rights and adhere to professional standards, the NMC helps uphold

journalistic integrity. Another key function of the NMC is to mediate disputes

between media organizations and individuals or institutions who may feel aggrieved

by media content. Instead of imposing penalties, the Commission often uses

alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms to resolve conflicts amicably.

Additionally, the NMC is responsible for registering media outlets, ensuring that only

those that meet legal and ethical standards are allowed to operate. This helps to

professionalize the media sector in Ghana, ensuring that media outlets adhere to a

code of conduct and operate within the legal framework.

Limitations of the National Media Commission

Despite its crucial role, the NMC faces several challenges that limit its effectiveness.

One of the most significant limitations is its lack of enforcement powers. While the

Commission can recommend sanctions and issue directives, it cannot impose legal

penalties on media houses that breach ethical or legal standards. This limitation

weakens the NMC’s regulatory role, as media houses can continue to operate without

facing significant consequences for unethical practices. This issue has been discussed
in literature, with scholars like Asante (2018) highlighting how the NMC’s lack of

enforcement powers undermines its regulatory capacity. Another challenge is the

weak oversight, which has led to the rise of misinformation and sensationalism in the

media. Without the ability to impose direct penalties, some media outlets operate with

minimal oversight, prioritizing commercial interests over factual reporting. This issue

is further exacerbated by financial and logistical constraints that hinder the NMC’s

ability to effectively monitor media activities nationwide. With limited funding, the

NMC struggles to carry out comprehensive monitoring and regulation, especially in

rural or remote areas, reducing its capacity to enforce ethical standards in media

content. Scholars such as Mensah (2020) and Ofori (2021) have noted how these

limitations contribute to the rise of misinformation and hinder the NMC’s ability to

address complaints in a timely and effective manner.

Conclusion

The National Media Commission remains a vital institution in Ghana’s democratic

framework, ensuring media freedom and ethical journalism. However, its lack of

enforcement powers and limited resources hinder its ability to fully regulate media

content and uphold ethical standards. For the NMC to be more effective, legal reforms

should be considered to provide it with stronger enforcement powers and increase its

funding to enhance its monitoring and oversight functions. These reforms would help

strengthen the NMC’s role in ensuring a responsible and credible media landscape in

Ghana, fostering public trust and good governance.

Importance of These Bodies

The importance of these constitutional and independent bodies lies in their role in

promoting good governance and safeguarding democracy in Ghana. They serve as

vital instruments of checks and balances, preventing any single arm of government

from abusing power. These bodies also enhance accountability by ensuring that public

officeholders uphold the principles of transparency and responsibility. Furthermore,

they contribute to democratic stability by protecting core democratic processes such

as free and fair elections, the rule of law, and human rights. Institutions like the

National Commission for Civic Education (NCCE) play a crucial role in public

education, fostering civic awareness and encouraging citizen participation in

governance. Through these functions, these bodies help strengthen democratic culture

and institutional integrity across the nation.

Conclusion

Ghana’s Independent Institutional Bodies and other key constitutional bodies are

fundamental pillars of the country’s democratic architecture. These institutions, such

as the Electoral Commission, Commission on Human Rights and Administrative

Justice (CHRAJ), National Commission for Civic Education (NCCE), Parliament,

Judiciary, and the Council of State, play indispensable roles in ensuring transparency,

accountability, and the rule of law. Their independence, coupled with strong legal

foundations enshrined in the 1992 Constitution, allows them to carry out their specific

mandates without undue influence, thereby maintaining a healthy separation of

powers among the branches of government.

These bodies not only safeguard the rights and freedoms of citizens but also ensure

that public officeholders operate within the confines of the law and that national
resources are utilized efficiently and ethically. As Ghana continues to grow

democratically, ongoing reforms, adequate resourcing, and capacity-building are

essential to further strengthen these institutions. Enhancing their operational

efficiency and public engagement will help deepen democratic governance, reinforce

public confidence, and sustain the nation’s commitment to justice, equality, and

participatory democracy.