“When Two Elephants Fight, It’s the Grass that Suffers”
Dear Nyaaba,
As you very well know, I have been enamored with proverbs, idioms, and their many relatives. My love for them stems from their picturesqueness and their concurrent quality of being able to evoke an image, concept or idea, more explicitly than even when tens of dozens of words are employed. A third attribute of proverbs is that they provide euphemistic alternatives to starkly unspeakable matters, in fact, alibis, safe enough to retreat to if the speaker is accused of discussing a matter that ordinarily outside their purview. But I delay, here, an example:
The proverb; “When two elephants fight, it’s the grass that suffers” captures the essence of the current tension between the Supreme Court of Ghana and the Parliament of Ghana. This conflict between two powerful arms of government has deep implications for the general populace, as citizens bear the consequences of strained institutional relations.
The Ghanaian constitution envisions a government where powers are separate but balanced across the judiciary, legislature, and executive branches. However, tensions often arise when one arm interprets its powers as superseding or infringing upon the other. Recently, disputes between the Supreme Court and Parliament have escalated, particularly over issues of jurisdiction, checks on legislative authority, and judicial review of parliamentary actions.
One significant point of contention has been the Supreme Court’s authority to review and nullify certain parliamentary decisions. Parliament asserts that, as the direct representative of the people, its mandate should remain largely free from judicial interference. However, the Supreme Court, interpreting the Constitution as the ultimate law, believes it has the duty to assess all governmental actions, including those by Parliament, to ensure they align with the Constitution. These contrasting views have led to accusations from Parliament that the judiciary is overreaching its powers, effectively intervening in legislative processes.
This impasse affects the “grass,” i.e., the citizens, in multiple ways. First, it can erode public confidence in state institutions, as a divided government may appear less capable of addressing critical national issues. Second, prolonged conflicts can delay legislative or judicial processes vital to public welfare, such as laws concerning economic reform, security, and social justice. Lastly, if tensions escalate, they risk creating a constitutional crisis, leading to a breakdown in the system of governance, which directly affects citizens’ lives.
Resolving the standoff requires dialogue and compromise, with respect for constitutional boundaries. Parliament and the Supreme Court should consider engaging in collaborative discussions to reaffirm their roles within Ghana’s constitutional framework. The example of such restraint and respect would not only reinforce institutional strength but also demonstrate to the citizens that their leaders prioritize national unity and welfare above institutional dominance.
PS
Nyaaba, too often the world applauds those who throw caution to the wind, deeming them brave, and to those that exercise restraint, they call cowards. Let us be mindful to be different.
Your descendant
The Honourrebel Siriguboy