SRC Busted! Illegality of ISRC Exposed, KSPH Explains
KNUST Students’ Parliament House (KSPH) as well as the entire student populace has taken notice of an Executive Instrument/Act being circulated on various WhatsApp platforms, purported to contain measures taken by the KNUST SRC to ensure the smooth continuity of student representation, having ended their tenure of office and in consideration of the current pandemic and its accompanying restrictions. We want to first of all state that we understand that the intentions of the SRC in undertaking this act were pure and having the interest of students at the center of it all. We also understand how difficult it must have been for all stakeholders to reach this decision and we appreciate the difficulty the Covid-19 has created.
However, upon thorough scrutiny of the said Act, this Honorable House wants to state unequivocally that we have been overwhelmed by some very unfortunate provisions in the Act and even more astonished at the authority on which the SRC President purported to have initiated this Executive Instrument. In light of the foregoing, we seek to address the many inconsistencies surrounding the Executive instrument and the illegality of it. The following reflect our concerns and subsequently our recommendations:
1. In the description of the supposed Act under its title, it reads, “AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INTERIM COMMITTEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF STUDENT
REPRESENTATION AND ORGANIZING OF THE STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL
ELECTIONS ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 22(1) AND (2) OF THE SRC CONSTITUTION,
2011 (AS AMENDED).” The said clauses as stated in the SRC constitution reads;
(1) There shall be a President of the SRC who shall be the leader and chief spokesperson of the SRC in all matters coming under his jurisdiction and shall be the Commander- in Chief of the University Cadet Corps.
(2) The President shall take precedence over all other persons under the SRC and in descending order, the Vice President, the Speaker of Parliamentary Council and the Judicial Council Chairman.
We wish to state that we do not find any provision in the above-mentioned clauses that empowers the president of the SRC President to pass the said Instrument. It is rather unfortunate that the stakeholders, including the SRC president would deliberately invoke a wrong provision in the SRC constitution as the foundation of this Instrument, rendering it illegal as that provision does not grant such powers.
2. Paragraph two (2) of the letter from the SRC President, that which accompanies and seeks to explain the rationale for the Instrument reads in part, “…I Master Adu-Baah Charles Jr, President of the SRC (2019/2020) after necessary consultations with relevant stakeholders, have
signed an instrument to ensure the continuance of the SRC.” However, the law is titled “AN
INSTRUMENT ENTITLED THE INTERIM STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE ACT, 2020.” We
would like to remind the SRC that an Act is different from an Instrument and as such a single document cannot be both at the same time. Perhaps the SRC would prefer that we school them on the distinction between these two; there are three types of Instruments namely, The Constitutional Instrument, The Legislative Instrument and The Executive Instrument. Generally and in relation to this subject, an Act is one that has seen the floor of parliament, gone through the necessary debate and all relevant processes before being approved and sent to the President to be assented. An Executive Instrument on the other hand derives its powers from an Act of Parliament.
3. Unfortunately, in as much as the SRC President failed to state whether or not it is an Act, we wish to state categorically that it does not qualify as an Act because it was not laid on the floor of the SRC Parliamentary Council for the necessary scrutiny and approval. Given the circumstances that Covid-19 has put us in, one would have expected that at least, members of the council, whom we believe are on a common platform, would be informed about the decision. We are reliably informed however, that members of the SRC Parliamentary Council were not given any official notice of the intention to execute the said Instrument.
4. Following the presidential assent given, KSPH supposes the SRC purported to create a resolution. Why we think so is stipulated in Article 44(1) of the SRC constitution which reads;
“The power of Parliamentary Council to make resolutions shall be exercised by resolution bills passed by Parliament and assented to by the President.”
It is thus clear that even if the SRC President sought to pass a resolution, it should be one that is
‘passed by parliament’ and only assented to by the president. Sadly, that is not case of this Instrument as members of the parliamentary council were not officially informed about it.
5. Let the SRC, perhaps the Judicial Council and all stakeholders of this Instrument, take note that the very nature of the draft does not reflect neither does it befit an Executive Instrument as they have confusedly sought to call it. Also, there is no provision in the SRC constitution that authorizes the SRC President or the Parliamentary Council to enact an Executive Instrument.
6. The next question is, assuming all procedures for passing a resolution as stipulated in Article 44 of the SRC constitution was duly complied with, can a resolution of parliament create new offices in the SRC? The answer is obviously in the negative sense. The most flexible law would have been the power of the SRC President to create ad hoc committees under Article 6 (h) (i), however, it still cannot be interpreted to mean that the president can create offices to be carried out as representatives of students at the university council. The purported ISR Committee is therefore alien to the SRC constitution. The supremacy of the SRC constitution under Act 2 of same must be defended and the said Act/Instrument must be an abrogation of the SRC constitution and same must be resisted as urged in Act 4 of the constitution.
7. The very power with which Master Adu-Baah Charles signed the Instrument is questionable as his tenure as the SRC President ended some days ago. The university officially ended the semester on 30th June, 2020 and by extension, the tenure of all student leaders technically came to an end. It is thus appalling the blatant disregard Master Adu-Baah Charles showed for rule of law in signing the said Instrument.
8. In bizarre events such as the one we currently find ourselves in, the only reasonable thing would have been for the outgone SRC President to exercise a supervisory role in the formation of an interim committee if need be.
9. The very composition of the supposed Interim Committee is as well questionable as it does not reflect the choice of the masses it seeks to represent. Article 2(1) of the Interim Students Representative Act, 2020 spells the category of persons to form this committee as representatives from Elected College Executives, Elected Hall Executives, Elected Non-Residential and ISA Executives, Institute of Distant Learning (IDL) and Clubs and Societies. In as much as we appreciate the efforts of the SRC in trying to get every student represented, it is instantly clear that the students, whom the SRC seeks to represent with the committee, did not have a say in who represents them. Indeed, no evidence of the SRC consulting the student body regarding this Instrument currently exists. This gross imposition of ‘the leader’s choice’ on the student body cannot and will not be tolerated by this House.
10. Article 12(1) of the SRC constitution reads; “The Executive Committee Officers of the SRC with the exception of the Vice President shall be elected through secret ballot by the students governed by the SRC.” Indeed, aside this provision, there is no other provision in the constitution that stipulates the manner in which the entirety of the Executive Committee Officers, the vice president excluded, be formed. We then find it strange how the said Instrument, naming representatives at the executive level for the student body, came about. We say the students must have a say, one way or the other, in all issues regarding their representation as mandated by the constitution.
11. Article 2(2) of the Interim Students Representative Act, 2020 reads, “The Chairperson of the
Committee shall be appointed by the SRC President, in consultation with the SRC Speaker of Parliament and the Judicial Council Chairperson, from the representatives presented under clause 1.” The duty that Master Adu-Baah Charles seeks to confer on himself here is the most absurd move ever. We wish to reiterate that Master Charles technically ceased to be the SRC President after 30th June, 2020, days after which he signed this Instrument, rendering this provision and the entire Instrument illegal. Even if the student body opts for an Interim Committee, it is only right that the chosen representatives elect a leader from amongst them and not have one imposed on them by an outgone president.
12. Article 3(2) of the same Act in question stipulates the mandate of the Interim Committee as, “To continue with the organization of the SRC and NUGS Elections within the first 14 days upon the commencement of the new academic year for continuing students.” Clause 4 reads, “To ensure that power is properly transitioned within seven days after the elections, to the duly elected SRC executives.” Indeed it is general knowledge that most students do not report early upon resumption due to varying reasons ranging from financial constraints to accommodation issues. Hence, we find it impossible that elections can be credibly held within the first 14 days
upon resumption, given that this time, the Covid-19 has already rendered many families financially incapacitated, suggesting that it would take a while for students to gather the necessary funds before reporting to school. The results of such an election will not reflect the true choice of majority of the student populace. The five days addition that could be granted by the Dean of Students as provided for by Article 3(3) of the Act will not make any difference.
In the face of the many inconsistencies and the illegality of the entirety of the Interim Students Representative Act, 2020, we as a House that believes and trusts that democracy, practiced to its utmost best, is the only way to ensure the political and social safety of all citizens and students in this case, demand and recommends the following with the hope that the SRC would repent and thread the democratic and constitutionally lawful path;
a. Having pointed out that Article 22(1) and (2) of the SRC constitution does not mandate the President of the SRC to enact such an Instrument, we request that the SRC President and others who helped frame the Instrument provide us with the exact authority that empowered them to enact the Instruction in question.
b. We also request that the SRC President and others who helped frame the Instrument clarify to all students the exact name of the document, specifically, whether it is an Act or an Executive Instrument. We also request that the SRC presents the general public with the exact method adopted to frame and enact the said Instrument.
c. In case the SRC decides to call it an Act, we demand proof that shows that members of the Parliamentary Council were officially informed about the Act and fully partook in its drafting and subsequently approved it.
d. In the matter of unlawful representation of students and in light of Article 12(1) of the SRC constitution, we suggest that in case the Interim Committee is the way to go, the students must have a say in who represents them. How is this to be done? The representatives of the students and members of the SRC Parliamentary Council were duly elected by the students, indicating that the people trust these representatives. They have thus worked all these months and so if one of them is to represent them on the Interim Committee, it is only fair and right that we allow the reps in each college, hall, and nonresidents etc. to elect their representative. This way, we think it will duly reflect the wishes and choice of the students.
e. In the event that the suggestion in (d) above is adhered to and carried out, the elected members will have to be the ones to elect their chairperson than have one imposed on them illegally.
f. The duration of operation of the Interim Committee after resumption of school should be reconsidered, preferably extended to allow for a fair and credible elections where the choices of majority of the people emerge winners and not otherwise.
We would like to remind the SRC of the provisions of Article 2(1) which reads, “This Constitution shall be the supreme law for the governance of all JCRs, associations, societies, unions, clubs and students, under the SRC and any other constitution and/or law found to be inconsistent with any provision in this Constitution shall to the extent of the inconsistency be null and void.” Clause 3 reads, “In the event of any inconsistency, a provision of this Constitution shall take precedence over any provision to the contrary in any JCR, association, society, union, and club’s constitution to the extent of the inconsistency.” The SRC President needs not be reminded that the governance system of KNUST is the democratic type and any attempt to disrupt the rule of law will not be accepted in any way.
We are hopeful that the SRC will consider repealing the illegal Instrument it has imposed on students and seek to use the appropriate, legal means to conduct its business. KSPH, as a lenient advocate, gives the SRC seven (7) days, beginning Monday, 6th July, 2020 to repeal the Instrument and do the needful. Within the first three (3) days of the seven day period, the SRC President should come out to apologize to the entire student populace and then go back to apply the rule of law. Thank you.
-Signed-
Rt. Hon. Robert Kumi Adu-Gyamfi
(Speaker of Parliament)
(054 842 7811)
Hon. Seth Ngoah
(Deputy Clerk of Parliament)
(0542722955)
Hon. Kusi Quainoo Felix
(Public Relations Officer)
(054 185 6471)
Comments
Post a Comment