THE PRINCIPLE AND RULES OF IMMUNITY FOR GOVERNMENT

  Immunity, as a concept and principle of practice for constitutional law, in a simplified definition, is for the holder of such ticket, to have a legal safeguard, by virtue of risk imposed naturally from duty, in goodfate, as posits by Senzu ^[1] in his legal brief, doctrine of immunity and governance; constitutional law issue.

          All State Institutions are creatures of law, thou, become an entity of persona, yet, cannot function independently, in exercising of it powers and obligations, unless an entrusted Office-holders, of human form, to manifest under a regulatory conditions.

         Therefore, their functions as State Institutions or National Corporations via human skill-sets, professional intelligence, and prerogative decisions, when inefficiently applied or inappropriately executed, in good fate, with consequence thereof, to potential victims, could necessitate for uncountable legal remedies, against an Institution or Corporation, only serving as indirect and legitimate patroniser, in human affairs. Hence, need to be legally protected from such unwarranted legal suits, the essence and relevance of the concept, Absolute Immunity, as legal safeguard for Statutory Institutions, to permanently bar them, from any legal attacks.

           However, the complexity to the question of Immunity, in principle of equity, as justified, is more to the Agent, as a human, functioning in the capacity, as Office holder to such statutory Institutions, with inadvertent mistakes, and repercussions to the benefactors. Thou, invoke the realm of the Court for the debate, on procedural reasoning, to examine whether the actions of the Office-holders, is of guilty intent, or mistakes out of negligence, and lack of duty of care, ^[2] as posits in the legal article of Senzu ^[3] on the principle of goodfate: Immunity assessment lens of the Court. In that purpose, the Office-bearer is legally protected under a Qualified Immunity. With the implicit deduction that, actions of bad fate by the Office-bearers, in their exit from Office, could be tried before a competent Court of Jurisdiction, for justification and redemption. While the Office-bearer is protected with Qualified Immunity, it must be acknowledged, all Office duties, is inherent with certain degree of risk, unavoidable as humans, therefore, lack of legal protection makes the Office unattractive to serve, by proficient acumen.

          The paradox with immunity application principle, is to have an Agent, to an absolute immune Office, seeking to obtain absolute immunity, as a status beyond the statutory office, thou, require a carefully conscripted immunity clauses of purpose, to sustain both the Agent, and the Institution, to safeguard them from any ramifications of their actions, either in good fate or bad fate, thou, inaccessible to any competent Court of Jurisdiction, to be tried.

 

REFERENCE

1. Senzu, T. E. ‘Doctrine of Immunity and Governance: Constitutional Law Issue.’ Blackstone Journal for Asia-Africa Jurists (2^nd eds.) 2(31): 1-7. 2025. Philpapers Publishers, USA.

2. Senzu, T. E. ‘The Principle of Duty of Care: Common Law Doctrine.’ Blackstone Journal for Asia-Africa Jurists (3^rd eds.) 10 (48):1-5.2026. Philpapers Publishers, USA.

3.  Senzu, T. E.  ‘The Principle of Goodfate: Immunity Assessment Lens of the Court’. Blackstone Journal for Asia-Africa Jurists (2^nd eds.) 7(33):1-5, 2025. Philpapers Publishers, USA.

 

____________________________________

Emmanuel Tweneboah Senzu, professor of Constitutional Law and Economic Criminology, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Utah, United States. Fellow, Ghana School of Law.

 

LAW CLINIC FOR LEADERSHIP OF JRCLS-SIERRA LEONE CHAPTER

          THE JURISTS CENTER COLLABORATIVE TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT

 [ MISSION ]: The training uphold the precept, of the Articles of Faith, Chapter of the Book of Mormon, versus 12, which, I quote;

“We believe in being subject to Kings, Presidents, Rulers, and Magistrates, in obeying, honouring, and sustaining the Law.”

[PURPOSE]:

Whenever, there is an established human interaction from inter-relations, with vested interests, the results, is misunderstanding and dispute, thou, the Church as a community of humans, cannot be excluded, hence, the essence of the Legal aid Department, to serve the Saints, as a complement to the Church Welfare Ministry and Humanitarian aid.

[LEADERSHIP TRAINING]:

On the 25^th and 26^th of September 2026; 9:00am to 5:00pm, of each day, there will be a leadership training sessions for the qualified Elders and Sisters, from the various Wards and Stakes of  the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, of Sierra Leone Mission Area, for the J. Reuben Clark Law Society, a comprehensive training, towards their capacity and efficiency, to serve the Mission area of the Church, on the following subjects of legal training;

I.  Mediators for internal grievances, from unexpected Membership Inter-relation conflicts within the Church, as in the Offices of Relief Societies, the Offices of Elders Quorums, the Offices of Bishoperics, and the Offices of Stake Presidencies, for effective Ecclesiastical duties.

II. Leadership Abuses, Marriages and Family Disputes settlement by Mediation, and Arbitration procedures, under the Church Ecclesiastical Tribunal.

III. Types of Legal aid services, for the  Wards and Stakes, as a Welfare Ministry by paralegals.

IV.  Negotiatory defense, against infractions emanating from Church Events and Local Laws, under dispute resolutions.

V. Negotiating skills against disputes, on Church facility management and Local regulatory laws.

VI.  Field Missionaries unexpected infractions, with the local regulatory laws, and negotiatory defense, duty.

VII.  Training on pertinent selected areas of the General Hand book, as Administrative Canonical Laws of the Church, for  the Wards and Stake managements, within the context of Local laws.

[ATTENDANCE FEE]: The fee of participation, including the Lunch to be served, for the two days event, is Nle 350 or $20. Registration forms, are available at the Local wards and Stakes, under the acting JRCLS coordinators for the Church.

[VENUE FOR TRAINING]: It shall be communicated, to fully registered members, for the Training Event.

[TAKE NOTE]: The training session, is a preparation to set-apart the qualified leadership, of the JRCLS Chapter of Sierra Leone, for the coming-up conference in October 2026, under the theme: The Rule of Law and Constitutionalism; the role of the Church.

 

FIRST SCHEDULE

25^TH SEPTEMBER 2026.

 

SUBJECT CODES	SUBJECT  TITLES	TIME
JRCLS-SL- 01	MEDIATION SETTLEMENT	10:00 AM -11:00 AM
JRCLS-SL - 02	ARBITRATION SETTLEMENT	11:00 AM -1:00 PM
	LUNCH SERVICE	1:00 PM -2:00 PM
JRCLS-SL- 03	LEGAL AID AND WELFARE SERVICE	2:00 PM -3:30 PM
CLOSING	QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SESSION	3:30PM -4:30PM

 

SECOND SCHEDULE

26^TH SEPTEMBER 2026.

 

SUBJECT CODES	SUBJECT TITLES	TIME
JRCLS-SL-04	CANON LAWS-GENERAL HAND BOOK	9:00 AM-11:00 AM
JRCLS-SL-05	ECCLESIASTICAL TRIBUNAL	11:30 AM -12:30 PM
	LUNCH SERVICE	12:30 PM – 1:30 PM
JRCLS-SL-06	LOCAL LAWS AND THE CHURCH	1:30 PM - 3:30 PM
CLOSING	QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SESSION	3:30 PM – 4:30PM

__________________________________________

Elder. Emmanuel Tweneboah Senzu, a Jurist, and professor of Constitutional Law and Economic Criminology. Legal aid- Lawyer, for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: J. Reuben Clark Law Society-President, Africa West  Mission Area.

THE LAWS OF GHANA AND POLITICIANS AS LAWYERS

The incessant use of the title Lawyer or Esquire, for politicians serving in Public Offices, more so Legislatures, representing their constituencies, within the Chamber of Parliament, need to be handled with care, in accordance to the regulatory orders, of the Laws of Ghana. Having the article and chosen topic, meant to serve Legal Education purpose, and safeguard media Journalism, towards press release on legal subject.

It must be acknowledged, and by experience admit, in the practice of the law, there are standards of conducts and ethics, very difficult to uphold, as an average political figure, and in most circumstance public officials, whose services of duty, do not fall in the rudiment of Legal system and the Justice Administration. Hence, the framers of the 1992 Constitution of the Fourth Republic, appreciating, the threshold requirement for;

I. The conducts and Ethics, in the practice of Law.

II. The Lawyer and Clients relationship, within the Justice Administration.

Thou, conferring these two major requirements, to the benchmark standards, of who qualifies as a Legislature, under the Laws of Ghana, to be accorded the Parliamentary privileges and immunities, framed the letters of the Law, in the Constitutional provision, to disallow a legislature, to be sworn-in at bar, and practice law, before the Bench of the Judiciary Court, of the Republic of Ghana. As stipulated in Article 94, Section (3) of the 1992 Constitution, Clause (b); which state;

“ A person shall not be eligible to be a member of Parliament, if he is a member of the Police Service, the Prison Service, the Armed Forces, the Judicial Service, the Legal Service, the Civil Service, the Audit Service, the Parliamentary Service, the Statistical Service, the Fire Service, the Customs, Exercise and Preventive Service, the Immigration Service, or the Internal Revenue Service.”

In furtherance, the Article 98, Section (2), states;

“ A member of Parliament, shall not hold any office of profit or emolument, whether private or public, and either directly or indirectly, unless permitted to do so, by the Speaker, acting on the recommendations of a committee of Parliament.”

Article 94 and 98 of the Act of Parliament, will be cited in tandem with the Legal profession (Conduct and Etiquette ) Rules [2020 (L.I. 2423)], the Rule 23, Clause (6) and (7), hence, quote as follows;

Clause (6) “ Where a member of a Law Firm, takes up a public office, that member shall not practice privately.”

Clause (7) “ Where the public office taken-up by the member of a Law Firm, is that of a Minister of State, Deputy Minister, or Member of Parliament, may practice subject to the permission of the Speaker.”

The Clause (7) of the Rule 23, of the Legal Professional code, is justified, in it interpretation under the provision of Article 103, Section 6, Clause (a), (b), (c ), as a Constitutional provision of the Act of Parliament, which, I quote;

“ A Committee appointed under this Article, shall have the powers, rights and privileges of the High Court, or a Justice of the High Court, at a trial for;

Clause (a) “ Enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation or otherwise”.

Clause (b) “ Compelling the production of documents", and

Clause (c ) “ Issuing a commission , or request to examine witnesses abroad".

It is therefore, persuasive, and legally established, that a Legislature, as a qualified Lawyer, could only practice, within the Chamber of Parliament, under a prerogative license of permission, by the Speaker of Parliament.

It is thereby conclusive, as a member of Parliament, being a qualified lawyer, opt to practice, out of the boundary of Parliamentary Chamber, to the Judicial Court of competent jurisdiction, is to admit, he has stripped himself officially, of all privileges and qualified immunities accorded onto, by the Act of Parliament, as stipulated in Article 115, 116, 117, 118, 119 and 120 of the 1992 Constitution of the  Fourth Republic of Ghana, and susceptible to be sued or summoned before any Judiciary Court of Ghana, by any one, who consider the adventure necessary, to bear the full consequence, of his actions to the latter, like any ordinary citizen, before a bench of a Competent jurisdiction of a Judicial Court, without any intervention, of the Speaker of Parliament.

 

REFERENCE

n The 1992 Constitution of the Fourth Republic of Ghana, as amended in 1996.

n Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rule [2020 (L.I. 2423)].

 

† Emmanuel Tweneboah Senzu, professor of Constitutional Law and Economic Criminology, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University. Utah, United States. Ghana School of Law, Greater Accra. West Africa.

 

 

 

 

THE AUTHORITY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION AND THE JURIDICAL DOCTRINE

            The question, as well the debate of, who have the authority to interpret the Constitution, in other to have effects on government, is as old as the birth of Constitutional theory, and the principle of separation of power.

 The author argument, in favour of contemporary practice, will draw relevant reference, from the American Jurisprudence, accompanied with famous legal assertions, acknowledging her core-strength for Constitutional law theory, within the legal realm, though a former colony of the British Empire, with England having the progeny right, to the Common law doctrine.

The author subscribe to the debate, that each branch of government, have the authority to interpret the constitutional provision, in it orbit of operations, having regard to the essence that, all elected Office-holders, takes an oath to uphold the Constitution.

And furthermore, acknowledge the facts that, Constitutional interpretation, has it Political and administrative doctrine, as well, the Economic and policy doctrine, which are unique of it purpose, as the Marshall Court in declaration to Marbury remedy stated, and shall quote as follows;

“ Where the heads of departments are the political or confidential agents of the Executive, merely to execute the will of the President, or rather to act in cases, in which the Executive possesses constitution or legal discretion, nothing can be mere perfectly clear, than that their acts are only politically examinable.”

 However, the Chief Justice John Marshall, went further to dissent, and I quote,

“The Constitution imposes limits on government powers, and that these limits are meaningless, unless subject to Judicial enforcement.”

Thou, such an assertion has been the axiomatic of Juridical doctrine, in upholding the rule of law and Justice, as a scope of Constitutional Interpretation, for Judges.

Thereby, makes the Judicial Institution to be solely, and constitutionally empowered, to resolve legal disagreement or controversies, as affirmed in the famous declaration of the Marshall Court, of Marbury v. Madison (1803), and I quote,

"It is emphatically the province, and duty of the Judicial department, to say what the Law is".

The above statement of quote, as a legal maxim, from the verdict of the Marshall Court, governs the authority for ‘Judicial Review’ in addressing legal controversies, and has been a working expansion theory of the American Court, after their succession from the British Imperial rule, as argued by Dudley O. McGovney (1877-1947). ‘Judicial Review’ as a doctrine, was birth as a dissenting opinion from Sir. Edward Coke, the Chief Justice, of the Court of Common pleas of England, and affirmed by the Court, during the Judgement declaration of Dr. Bonham’s case, in the year (1610). Which, I quote an abstract section of the verdict,

“When an Act of Parliament is against Common Right and Reason, or Repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the Common law will control it, and adjudge such act to be void”.

Thou, there is enormous expectations on modern Court system, under sophisticated political regimes, to know, ‘when’ and ‘how’ to negotiate their path, in upholding the sacrosanct of the Court, as well the sanctity and reputation of it duty, and mandate to the law. For her Ministry, is to strictly administer, and uphold the doctrine of the Rule of law, and Justice, nothing less or more, hence, the wisdom to apply Judiciability principle, as a discretionary doctrine, to decline review, where prudence counsels Judicial avoidance, is the cornerstone of  Judicial power, and enforceable authority in the law.

  

[REFERENCE]

English cases on Constitutional law, 8 co. rep. 114a, 118a (1610).

Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S at 176 (1803).

Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S at 177 (1803).

McGovney, O. D., British origin of Judicial Review of Legislation. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 93, Issue No. 2 (1944).

 _____________________________________________________

†Emmanuel Tweneboah Senzu, professor of Constitutional Law and Economic Criminology, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Provo, Utah, USA. A Cross-Departmental fellow, University of Ghana, and the Central University Faculty of Law. Africa.