Ghanaian lawyer and activist, Oliver Baker Vormawor, has provided legal clarity on why President John Dramani Mahama swiftly appointed caretaker ministers following the tragic accident that claimed the lives of some government ministers earlier this month.
Mr. Vormawor addressed concerns raised by sections of the public questioning why deputy ministers were not allowed to act in the absence of substantive ministers.
According to him, the Constitution does not grant deputy ministers any independent mandate to run a ministry.
Their authority, he explained in a post on Facebook sighted by MyNewsGh, exists only in relation to a substantive minister who has already been appointed and approved by Parliament.
“A Deputy cannot deputise thin air,” he wrote. “If there is no ‘first-in-command’, then there is no one for the deputy to legally stand in for.”
Mr. Vormawor noted that only individuals vetted and approved by Parliament as ministers can lawfully exercise ministerial functions.
While deputies may act when the substantive minister is temporarily unavailable, he stressed that they cannot take over a ministry entirely in the absence of a substantive minister.
Citing examples, he stated that the Deputy Minister of Trade, Brogya Genfi, could not have constitutionally acted as Minister simply by virtue of his position, while the Ministry of Information under Comrade Murtala had no deputy at all.
He added that the President acted out of necessity to avoid a governance vacuum, ensuring that “work at critical ministries did not grind to a halt.”
Mr. Vormawor further cautioned against dismissing public concerns outright, noting that misinformation often thrives when governments fail to provide clear explanations.
“Misinformation is potent because it takes a well-intentioned curious mind and weaponizes it with half-truths. This is why government must not let things slide but explain issues with clarity,” he advised.
President Mahama’s decision to appoint caretaker ministers has been widely debated, with some suggesting political motives. However, Vormawor’s intervention sought to frame the move as a constitutional requirement rather than a matter of discretion.
