Trump says US-Iran deal to be signed on Sunday as Tehran casts doubt on timing

Ghana operates under a dualist legal system, meaning international treaties and agreements do not automatically become part of domestic law upon ratification. For such instruments to have legal effect within Ghana, they must undergo a process of domestication, primarily through parliamentary action. This article explores the constitutional framework governing international agreements in Ghana, focusing on the distinct roles of the Executive and Parliament as enshrined in the 1992 Constitution, particularly Article 75. It further examines the Supreme Court's interpretation of parliamentary approval requirements for certain international business transactions, providing essential guidance for legal practitioners navigating the interplay between international and Ghanaian municipal law.

The landscape of international relations frequently sees states engaging in various treaties, agreements, and conventions aimed at fostering cooperation, resolving disputes, or regulating cross-border activities. While the announcement of a potential international deal, such as one between the US and Iran, captures global attention, its legal efficacy within any given state hinges on that state's domestic legal framework for incorporating international law. For legal professionals, understanding this intricate relationship between international commitments and national legal systems is paramount, particularly in jurisdictions like Ghana.

Ghana, a sovereign state with a robust constitutional democracy, adheres to a dualist approach to international law. This means that merely signing or ratifying an international instrument at the executive level does not automatically translate into enforceable domestic law. Instead, a deliberate legislative act is required to transform international obligations into national legal norms. This article delves into the constitutional and jurisprudential underpinnings of this dualist system in Ghana, highlighting the critical steps and considerations for attorneys advising on matters impacted by international agreements.

The central thesis is that Ghana's legal framework, primarily articulated in the 1992 Constitution, mandates a clear separation between the executive act of entering into international agreements and the legislative act of incorporating them into domestic law. This structure ensures parliamentary oversight and democratic accountability, making the process of domestication a crucial determinant of an international agreement's enforceability within Ghana's borders.

Ghana's legal system, rooted in the common law tradition, is distinctly dualist concerning the application of international law. This position is firmly established in the 1992 Constitution, which outlines the procedure for Ghana to become bound by international instruments and for those instruments to acquire domestic legal force. Article 75(1) of the Constitution grants the President the authority to execute or cause to be executed treaties, agreements, or conventions in the name of Ghana.

However, this executive power is balanced by Article 75(2), which stipulates that any such treaty, agreement, or convention executed by or under the authority of the President must be subject to ratification by Parliament. This ratification can occur either through an Act of Parliament or by a resolution of Parliament supported by the votes of more than one-half of all its members. This constitutional provision underscores that while the Executive can commit Ghana on the international plane, the Legislature holds the ultimate power to make these international obligations part of Ghana's domestic law. Furthermore, Article 40 of the Constitution guides Ghana's foreign policy, including the promotion of respect for international law and treaty obligations.

The dualist nature of Ghana's legal system means that an international treaty, even after parliamentary ratification under Article 75(2), does not automatically become directly enforceable in Ghanaian courts unless it has been specifically incorporated into domestic law through legislation. Scholars have identified several mechanisms through which Ghana absorbs principles of international law, with the safest and most common being domestic ratification through an Act of Parliament. Other methods include ratification by parliamentary resolution, the coincidence of existing Ghanaian law with international principles, the recognition of customary international law as part of Ghana's common law, incorporation by reference in domestic law, judicial resort to international law to fill lacunae, and judicial elaboration of domestic principles using international law.

A significant judicial interpretation of Ghana's constitutional requirements for international agreements is found in the Supreme Court's decision in *Attorney-General v. Balkan Energy Ghana Ltd & Ors.* This landmark case provided an authoritative interpretation of Article 181(5) of the 1992 Constitution, which mandates parliamentary approval for "international business or economic transaction to which the Government is a party." The Court ruled that a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between the Government of Ghana and a locally incorporated, but wholly foreign-owned and managed, entity constituted an international business transaction requiring parliamentary approval. This decision emphasized a purposive interpretation, focusing on the substance over the form of the transaction and the presence of significant foreign elements, thereby broadening the scope of agreements requiring parliamentary oversight beyond traditional treaties.

Despite the clear constitutional provisions, challenges persist in the consistent domestication of international instruments. For instance, while Ghana has ratified numerous international human rights treaties, some have not been fully incorporated into domestic law, leading to debates about their direct enforceability in national courts. The Supreme Court has reiterated that treaties, even when ratified, are not part of domestic law until incorporated by legislation, reinforcing Ghana's dualist stance. This highlights a potential gap where international obligations, though binding on Ghana internationally, may not create directly enforceable rights or duties for individuals or entities within the domestic legal system without specific legislative action.

For legal practitioners in Ghana, the implications of the country's dualist approach to international law are profound. Any engagement with international agreements, whether they are traditional treaties or significant international business transactions involving the government, necessitates a thorough understanding of both the international ratification process and the domestic requirements for legal effect. It is not sufficient to merely ascertain that Ghana has signed or ratified an international instrument; practitioners must confirm its legislative incorporation into municipal law for it to be enforceable in Ghanaian courts.

Therefore, attorneys advising clients on matters involving the Ghanaian government and foreign entities must conduct rigorous due diligence to ensure that all constitutional requirements, particularly those under Articles 75 and 181(5), have been met. This includes verifying parliamentary ratification and, where necessary, the enactment of specific legislation to domesticate the agreement. Failure to observe these domestic legal formalities can render an international agreement unenforceable within Ghana, potentially exposing parties to significant legal and commercial risks. The ongoing evolution of Ghana's engagement with international law demands continuous vigilance from the legal community to ensure compliance and effective advocacy.