Participants at a review meeting in Ho on the 1992 Constitution has called for an amendment of Article 71 (1) to allow the Fair Wages and Salary Commission (FWSC) to determine the salary and allowances of the President of Ghana.
They said the amendment should enable the Commission to also determine the salaries and allowances of the Speaker of Parliament, Members
of Parliament and officials mentioned in Article 71 of the Constitution.
They argued at the meeting on Wednesday that the current provision, which conferred on the President the power to determine the salaries and allowances of the Speaker and MPs, raised suspicion of favouritism in the matter.
"It becomes a game of wash my hand and I wash your hand", one of the participants said.
The meeting also upheld the proposal that an independent National Prosecution Service should be established in order to de-politicize the prosecution of political office holders.
The meeting, however, objected to the proposal to allow chiefs to engage in partisan politics because such a dispensation would be a recipe for conflicts and loss of dignity for the chieftaincy institution.
It was argued, however, that chiefs like any other citizens with expertise could be asked by any government to offer such expertise in the
national interest, which was not the same as partisanship.
A participant argued that it was not necessary to make any provision to deal with a situation in which a sitting President leaves the party on whose ticket he was voted into power.
In his view, once elected, the President becomes a national rather than a partisan figure and must therefore pursued the national interest and be guided by the Directive Principles of State policy rather than the party's interest.
Others, however, argued for a provision to compel the President to resign from office once he resigned from his party while in office.
In their view the President was voted on a platform of his party's manifesto and could therefore not qualify to remain President on resigning from his party.
A counter argument was whether a President elected as an independent candidate but decided to join a political party while in office should be made to resign as President.
The meeting was also divided on other issues including whether there should be a ceiling for the number of judges to be appointed to the Supreme Court.
Those, who argued for a ceiling, said apart from saving the country huge financial burdens on the national purse given the conditions attached to the offices of such judges, a ceiling would erase allegations of
executive manipulation of the Supreme Court.
The pro-ceiling advocates said their position would strengthen the independence of the judiciary and public confidence in it.
Those who were for a non-ceiling, argued that the government in power would be assured of a corps of Supreme Court Judges that would be amenable to its cause.
On death penalty, some called for its retention in the constitution as punishment for those, who have been proven to have committed murder and high treason.
Others, however, argued that because death could not be reversed it would smack of injustice to those who might be killed only for fresh
evidence to show later that they were innocent of the charges for which they have been sentenced to death.
The meeting was however unanimous on the retention of the indemnity provision in the constitution as well as the tenure of the President.