That being so, there is need for all aspects of the case to be considered in order to make its determination stand the test of time.

In the year 2016, Margaret Banful and Henry Nana Boakye hauled the erstwhile Attorney-General (A-G) and the Minister for Interior to the Supreme Court for the court to declare that the continued stay of Mahmud Umar Bin Atef and Muhammed Salih Al-Dhuby in Ghana is unlawful. They also sought an order from the court directing the Interior Minister to immediately return the two detainees to the US government.

The two applicants prayed the Supreme Court for “a declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Article 75 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, the President of the Republic of Ghana, by agreeing to the transfer of Bin Atef and Al-Dhuby (both former detainees of the Guantanamo Bay) to the Republic of Ghana, required ratification by an Act of Parliament or a resolution of Parliament, supported by the votes of more than one-half of all members of Parliament.”

According to them, former President John Dramani Mahama acted unconstitutionally in his failure to obtain the requisite ratification by an Act of Parliament or a resolution of Parliament when he agreed with the government of the US to transfer the two former detainees to Ghana.

Per the directions given by the court, government must within the period of 6 month send the agreement to Parliament for ratification (expiring in 8 January 2018) or have the two detainees sent back to the US.

Presently, government is saying it is unable to immediately execute plans to repatriate the two Guantanamo Bay detainees who have been in Ghana the last two years because of their refugee status. According to official statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, she said that “they were issued a decision letter dated July 21, 2016, recognizing their status as refugees. The implication is that in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the status of Refugees of 1951 and the 1967 Protocol on the Status of Refugees as well as Provisions of the Refugees Laws, 1992, PNDC Law 305 (D) of Ghana, the two have attained the status of refugees in our country”

This statement flies in the face of evidence of the law governing refugee status. The Gitmo 2 are not refugees by any stretch of the word in any of the statutes. In reference to the United Nations Convention on the status of Refugees of 1951, it states under Article 1(2), titled “Definition of the term refugee”, as follows:

“A. For the purposes of the present Convention, the term “refugee” shall apply to any person who:
(2) As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well- founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

In the case of a person who has more than one nationality, the term “the country of his nationality” shall mean each of the countries of which he is a national, and a person shall not be deemed to be lacking the protection of the country of his nationality if, without any valid reason based on well-founded fear, he has not availed himself of the protection of one of the countries of which he is a national.”

The Gitmo 2 are residence in Ghana. The elements of their activities and circumstances under which they came here are clearly known. They do not fall within the scope of the above definition of a refugee. It goes on to say in section C under Article 1 that the convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:

1. He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or

2. Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily re-acquired it; or

3. He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or

4. He has voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he left or outside which he remained owing to fear of persecution; or

5. He can no longer, because the circumstances in connexion with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist, continue to refuse to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to a refugee falling under section A(1) of this article who is able to invoke compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution for refusing to avail himself of the protection of the country of nationality;

6. Being a person who has no nationality he is, because of the circumstances in connexion with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist, able to return to the country of his former habitual residence;

In regards to these provision, how did we coin the word “refugee” on people who have not lost their nationality? And given the situation where they are reported to have been married to Ghanaian women, they are by our law under Article 7 of the 1992 Constitution Ghanaian nationals; hence why do we call them refugees?

Furthermore, section E of Article 1 emphasizes that the convention shall not apply to a person who is recognized by the competent authorities of the country in which he has taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality of that country.

Perhaps, it was a mistake on the part of governments in the statement of the Gitmo 2 refugee status. The facts are explicit and sacred. No amount of semantics can yark the fact that they are not refugees. So far none of these statutes including the Provisions of the Refugees Laws, 1992, PNDC Law 305 sets out the categorization of these two Yemenis as refugees in Ghana. Since there seem to be no facts of evidence alluding to their refugee status, we should insist that government holds the power for them to be given that.

–

By: Michael Sumaila Nlasia (Research Fellow, Centre for Data Processing and Geo-Spatial Analysis)

Email: [email protected]  Phone: 0548455071

The post Our hands are not tied; GITMO 2 not refugees [Article] appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

[contextly_sidebar id=”x2Un4wvKNaIAAbmdilKzb0jgDGPT0Stt”]His suggestion comes on the back of Foreign Affairs Minister, Shirley Ayorkor Botchwey’s assertion that the government has limited options because of the refugee status conferred on them under the Mahama administration in July 2016.

The Minister had stated that, the agreement signed between the government of Ghana and United States of America, indicated that, while the US has no obligation to the detainees after the initial two-year agreement, Ghana has the responsibility to integrate the two into the Ghanaian society.

However, speaking to Citi News’ Duke Mensah Opoku, Mr. Ayine said the refugee status conferred on the two does not necessarily make their return impossible.

“Under our refugee law, as quoted by the Minority Leader, the refugee status can be withdrawn, so it is left with this government to take that step if they so think that the presence of the two persons on Ghanaian soil is inimical to the interest of the people of this country.”

He further pointed out that, government has two options of either renegotiating its agreement with the US or resorting to possible exit arrangements.

“One option is to take steps to renew the agreement. To renegotiate terms that will inure to the benefit of the people of this country. The other option is to look at the exit arrangement necessary for the two persons that we admitted into the country to be taken out of the country,” he said.

Background

The move to host the two in the country was criticized by many observers including the then-in-opposition New Patriotic Party, who described the two as a security threat despite assurances to the contrary by the US.

Two citizens; Margaret Bamful and Henry Nana Boakye, further sued the former Attorney General and the Minister of Interior contending that the two were being hosted illegally.

The two were justified by the Supreme Court, which declared as unconstitutional the agreement between the Mahama government and the United States.

The apex court ordered the government to send the agreement to Parliament for ratification or have the two detainees sent back to the US.

According to the judgment, the government needed the approval of Parliament before entering into any international agreement, just as in the case of the two detainees.

When the matter came up for discussion in Parliament, the House was informed that the agreement was reached under a note verbale and Memorandum of Understanding.

A note verbale is a piece of diplomatic correspondence prepared in the third person and unsigned. Parliament subsequently ratified the agreement for the two for detainees to be in the country.

Return GITMO 2 now – Antwi Danso to gov’t

An International relations analyst, Dr. Vladimir Antwi Danso had earlier asked government to take immediate steps to return the two detainees.

“They were given two years to stay in Ghana, and the two years have elapsed, what next. And for me they have to leave the country. They must be made to leave by the tenets of the agreement. And agreement tells how its termination can be. So I don’t see why this thing cannot be done, because if they are not made to leave, the security implications are dire,” Antwi Danso earlier stated.

–

By: Marian Ansah/citifmonline.com/Ghana
Follow @EfeAnsah

The post Gov’t could return Gitmo 2 by withdrawing refugee status – Ayine appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

The first meeting of the second session of Parliament is being chaired by the First Deputy Speaker, Joe Osei Owusu, because the Speaker, Professor Aaron Mike Oquaye, is currently serving as acting President due to the absence of both the President and the Vice President.

[contextly_sidebar id=”cLpvYuCeT9tHdLtGMbisXgmJo5fp9dWn”]The House was recalled for an emergency session earlier in January after the Minority wrote to the Speaker urging him to call for the sitting to consider their motion on the alleged ‘cash for seat’ scandal.

MPs returned to the House again on Sunday, as Prof Oquaye was sworn in as Acting President by Chief Justice, Sophia Akuffo.

However, this is the first normal sitting of the House since they went on recess for the Christmas holidays.

Citi News‘ Parliamentary correspondent, Duke Mensah Opoku, reported that the Minority Leader, Haruna Iddrisu in his statement, called on Parliament to summon the Interior Minister, Ambrose Dery, to answer questions on the recent jailbreak at Kwabenya which resulted in the death of one policeman.

He added that the Police Command, led by the Inspector General Commander (IGP), was currently locked in a meeting with the Interior and Defence Committee of Parliament over that issue “and other related matters with regards to security in general in the country.”

The Tamale South MP also demanded that government gives clear indications on whether or not they would extend the stay of the former Guantanamo Bay detainees.

President Akufo-Addo had indicated at last week’s Media Encounter that the two former Gitmo detainees would learn their fate when the House reconvenes.

Duke Mensah Opoku also reported that, the vetting of Special Prosecutor-nominee Martin Amidu “is part of the programme of activities that will be laid out in this session of the House” along with a report from the Committee considering a motion for rescission of the AMERI deal.

“Later on, in this session of the House, we’re expecting that President [Nana Akufo-Addo] will come and deliver his State of The Nation address to the people’s representatives. With regards to the exact time that these programmes will be held, we aren’t quite sure, but we know it will be in this session of Parliament,” Duke added.

‘Meet the deadline’

The bi-partisan Committee probing the alleged extortion of expatriates during the 2017 Ghana Expatriate Business Awards, is also expected to present its report on Wednesday, which was the deadline set by Parliament when the Committee was formed.

The acting Speaker, Joe Osei-Owusu, asked the ad-hoc Committee to ensure that they meet the deadline and submit their report accordingly.

“As you know, our mandate of scrutinizing government business and holding public officials to account gained a lot of public interest till the ad-hoc committee was setup to investigate the alleged collection of various sums of monies from expatriates business during the Expatriates Business Awards in Accra. I suppose that substantial work has been done by the Committee to meet the deadline given by Mr. Speaker to enable the House consider the report during this week,” he added.

–

By: Edwin Kwakofi/citifmonline.com/Ghana

The post Parliament resumes sitting after Christmas break appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

The two, Bin Atef and Khalid Muhammad Salih Al-Dhuby, who were in detention for 14 years after being linked with terrorist group Al-Qaeda, were brought to Ghana in 2016, for a period of two years, after which they are expected to be reintegrated in their home country, Yemen.

[contextly_sidebar id=”5NDghF8Oq5uxEHOveRuqTtgTpjmGJN3Q”]But two Ghanaian citizens, Margaret Bamful and Henry Nana Boakye, subsequently sued the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, together with the Minister of Interior, accusing then-President John Mahama of illegally bringing in the two without recourse to the laws of the land.

The plaintiffs were seeking among other reliefs, a “declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Article 75 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, the President of the Republic of Ghana acted unconstitutionally by agreeing to the transfer of Mahmud Umar Muhammad Bin Atef and Khalid Muhammad Salih Al-Dhuby.”

After staying in the country for over a year, the Supreme Court a few weeks ago declared as unconstitutional the hosting of the two detainees without parliamentary  approval of the agreement for their stay.

The court in its judgement thus asked government to put before Parliament an agreement that will legalize the two detainees’ stay in the country, or they risk being repatriated within three the next months.

Following the Supreme Court’s judgement, President of the Conference, Reverend Philip Naameh, has told Citi News the two should be repatriated once the Supreme Court has made provision for such a move.

“Once it makes provision for the detainees to be taken back to the country I will support that because there might have been a reason why US did not want the people to come back to the US, so if the ruling of the Supreme Court is that either it goes back to Parliament so that it is legalized or the people are taken to the US , I will think that it is the most logical thing because we were saying we did not see that it was legal enough and it has been confirmed by the Supreme Court ruling and therefore if they will take them back to the US, we will have no issue with that.”

The Conference had earlier cautioned that hosting the two in the country was dangerous. The Council, in a statement had indicated that, the move posed a major security threat to Ghana.

“…We expect our Government to focus a lot of attention on helping to secure peace and security in the country by dealing with the above-mentioned and related challenges and not to risk the security of our land by hosting two former terrorists,” the Conference intimated.

–

By: Marian Ansah/citifmonline,com/Ghana

The post Send Gitmo 2 back to US – Catholic Bishops appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

According to the court, the interpretation of article 75 and 83 of the constitution with regards to the substantive case, was monumental, and therefore more time was needed to give consideration to it.

[contextly_sidebar id=”AZlQjMpvejPZaS7GuqvrpxnDeTbzJOJL”]The court has since set the 22nd of June 2017 for the judgment.

It further ordered the two parties in the case to file submissions on whether the country could abrogate an international agreement if it goes contrary to the laws.

Two Ghanaian citizens, Margaret Bamful and Henry Nana Boakye, sued the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, together with the Minister of Interior, accusing then President John Mahama of illegally bringing in the two former Gitmo detainees, without recourse to the laws of the land.

The plaintiffs are seeking among other reliefs a “declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Article 75 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, the President of the Republic of Ghana acted unconstitutionally by agreeing to the transfer of Mahmud Umar Muhammad Bin Atef and Khalid Muhammad Salih Al-Dhuby.”

Ex-Guantanamo detainees pose no security threat – US Embassy

Ghanaians met government’s decision to host the two as a threat to national security, but Government insisted the two men posed no threat.

In January 2016, the United States Embassy in Ghana, assured Ghanaians that the presence of the two former detainees, posed no threat to the security of the country.

“The two detainees that were transferred to Ghana have already arrived…we don’t have access to the specifics of their whereabouts, you have to go to the government of Ghana for that,” Public Affairs Counselor at the US Embassy in Ghana, Daniel Fennell said.

The two Guantanamo bay detainees, Mahmud Umar Muhammad Bin Atef and Khalid Muhammad Salih Al-Dhuby, had been in detention for 14 years, after being linked with terrorist group Al-Qaeda.

Meanwhile, Nana Agyei Baffour, has told journalists that they will follow the court’s order to file submissions on whether or not the country could abrogate an international agreement because it infringes on its domestic laws.

–
By: Fred Tettey Djabanor/citifmonline.com/Ghana

The post Judgment on GITMO detainees acceptance adjourned appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.