LAW OF INTERPRETATION - INTERPRETATION OF NATIONAL CONSTITUTION ( 3)

تفصیل

#CONSTITUTIONAL LAW #SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION #separationofpowers #SEPERATION OF POWERS CONSTITUTION AS A LIVING ORGANISM IN GHANAIAN CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION A central feature of modern constitutional interpretation in Ghana is the recognition that the Constitution is not a static legal instrument but a **living organism**, capable of growth, adaptation, and responsiveness to changing societal conditions. This idea reflects a deliberate departure from rigid literalism towards a more dynamic and purposive interpretative approach. The Memorandum to the Interpretation Act, 2009 (Act 792) underscores this position by indicating that constitutional interpretation is not to be constrained by the Act. Rather, interpretation must take into account the **cultural, economic, political, and social developments** of the nation. This confirms that external factors and evolving realities are relevant in construing constitutional provisions. However, the courts have made it clear that while the Interpretation Act may serve as an **aid**, it is **not binding** in constitutional interpretation. In Osei-Akoto v Attorney-General, Date-Bah JSC emphasised that explanatory memoranda and statutory definitions cannot control the meaning of the Constitution. They are persuasive, not determinative. The philosophical foundation of this approach was powerfully articulated in Tuffuor v Attorney-General, where Sowah JSC stated that: “A written constitution is not an ordinary Act of Parliament… It has its letter of the law. Equally, it has its spirit… Its language must be considered as if it were a living organism.” This statement captures the essence of the **Living Constitution theory**—that constitutional meaning is not frozen at the time of enactment but evolves in response to contemporary needs and societal values. Yet, this evolutionary approach is not without limits. The courts have consistently warned against unconstrained judicial creativity. In Republic v Fast Track High Court; Ex parte Daniel, Kludze JSC cautioned