Ghanaian presidential hopeful and businessman, Nana Kwame Bediako has detailed how he’s going to fulfil his ambitious plan to connect Kumasi, a landlocked region in Ghana, to the sea.

Bediako, also known as Freedom Jacob Ceasar or Cheddar, had previously promised to dredge a sea to Kumasi as a way of boosting economic activities in the country.

Many Ghanaians are however skeptical about the feasibility of such a project.

During a listening tour at the University of Cape Coast, Cheddar explained his vision by referencing his childhood interest in maps and the geographical layout of Africa while highlighting the untapped potential of Ghana’s water bodies, such as the Pra and Oti Rivers.

“When I was checking the map of this country, I saw the rivers Pra and Oti. When you’re coming from Kumasi to Cape Coast, the big river is just there. It’s not connected.

“When I started this tour, I went to Techiman, then to Tamale, then to Bolga, then to Bogoso, then to Techiman. So every time I went to the room, I quickly studied the map of that region. Then I found out that there’s a river Tano in Techiman, and it goes all the way to the end of Takoradi, sharing the border with the Ivorian coast. Next to it is the sea,” he explained.

Cheddar said he was going to leverage these rivers for transportation by connecting them to the sea through dredging.

“So what we have to do is just dredge our land, let the sea merge with the water bodies, the river, and the lagoon, and start to use it as a transportation. It’s been there, but we haven’t thought of it.

“You can look at the Manchester canal, all of you can google how they dredged the sea to merge with the river for it to become that,” he said.

The proposal, which has sparked debate, aims to transform the economic landscape by making Kumasi a hub for sea transport, potentially opening up new trade routes and opportunities.

Cheddar’s plan draws inspiration from global examples like the Manchester Canal, where inland areas have been connected to the sea, suggesting a similar possibility for Ghana.

Watch the video below

The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin has announced that the House is unable to continue the processes that would lead to the approval of ministers designate vetted by the Appointments Committee.

He said this decision has been occasioned by the pendency of an interlocutory injunction filed by the Member of Parliament for South Dayi, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor.

“Hon Members, I also bring to your attention, the receipt of a process from the Courts titled Rockson-Nelson Etse K. Dafeamekpor vrs the Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney-General (Suit no. J1/12/2024) which process was served on the 19th of March 2024 and an injunction motion on notice seeking to restrain the Speaker from proceeding with the vetting and approval of the names of the persons submitted by His Excellency the President until the provisions of the constitution are satisfied.

Hon. Members in the light of this process, the House is unable to continue to consider the nominations of His Excellency the President in the “spirit of upholding the rule of law“ until after the determination of the application for interlocutory injunction by the Supreme Court,” Mr Bagbin stated.

This is contained in a 62-point “Formal statement by the Speaker on the refusal of the President to accept the transmission of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2021” read by Mr Bagbin on March 20, 2024.

It would be recalled that the Secretary to Cabinet wrote to the Clerk to Parliament to cease and desist from transmitting the aforementioned Bill to Parliament. Mr. Asante Bediatuo contended that such an act is contemptuous of the Supreme Court as there are two suits pending before the apex court in respect of the Bill.

However, Mr Bagbin argued that the transmission of the Bill to the presidency does not, in any way, constitute contempt of court.

“It undermines the constitutionally outlined procedures and also poses a significant threat to the functioning of democracy. Such a perspective could stultify not only the work of Parliament but also that of other arms of government or statutory agencies, based merely on the potential for an injunction. This approach, therefore, is legally unfounded given the clear constitutional mandates and potentially dangerous, as it could serve to undermine the principles of separation of powers and the efficient functioning of government,” he explained.

This notwithstanding, Mr Bagbin decided to use the fact that an injunction has been filed against the approval of the ministers designate to halt the process as indicated above.

The Speaker further noted that, “The Parliament of Ghana will comply with the existing legal framework and reject the attempts by the Executive Secretary of the President, through his contemptuous letter, to instruct the Clerk to Parliament, an Officer of Parliament whose position is recognizably under the Constitution. We shall not cease and desist!”

Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, on March 20, 2024, delivered a formal statement responding to what has become a rift between the Executive and Legislative arms of government.

At the heart of the 62-point statement is the contents of a letter signed by Executive Secretary to the president asking the Clerk of Parliament to cease and desist from transmitting the anti-LGBT+ Bill to the presidency.

Nana Bediatuo Asante cited legal matters before the Supreme Court over the Bill’s constitutionality and an advice from the Attorney-General that the president desists from taking action on the Bill as basis for his letter.

Bagbin, however, strongly disagreed with the letter which he said was contemptuous of Parliament.

In a four-part statement, he addresses the legality of lawmaking and its nuances and the issue of injunctions especially those seeking to block parliament from undertaking its core mandate.

Read he full statement below:

FORMAL STATEMENT BY THE RT. HON. SPEAKER ON THE REFUSAL OF THE PRESIDENT TO ACCEPT THE TRANSMISSION OF THE HUMAN SEXUAL RIGHTS AND FAMILY VALUES BILL, 2021.

INTRODUCTION

1. Honorable Members, I address you today amid circumstances that profoundly challenge the core principles of our constitutional democracy.

2. At the outset, I must express my profound regret concerning the conduct displayed by the Presidency following Parliament’s successful unanimous passage of the Human Sexual Values Bill, 2021.

3. The behaviour exhibited by the Presidency in refusing to accept the transmission of this bill not only deviates from established democratic practices but also undermines the spirit of cooperative governance and mutual respect for the arms of government.

4. This is a principle that forms the cornerstone of our political system. Such actions, if left unchecked, risk setting dangerous precedents that threaten the integrity and functionality of our democratic institutions.

5. To situate this statement in the appropriate context, it is crucial to acknowledge a disturbing pattern emerging from the Executive branch, which points to a concerning disregard for the foundational principles enshrined in the Constitution, 1992.

6. This pattern has once again been made evident in the President’s recent refusal to accept the transmission of the Human Sexual Values Bill. The recent move is not isolated. It forms part of a series of actions that undermine the legislative process. As you may recall, I addressed this House on 22nd December, 2023 in a formal statement. The purpose of that statement was to draw your attention to the President’s refusal to assent to three critical bills that had been duly passed via a Private Members’ Bill.

7. During that address, I underscored the troubling nature of the President’s justifications for his actions, or rather, the lack thereof, particularly highlighting that his failure to assent on grounds of alleged unconstitutionality, paradoxically stood in violation of the very constitution he invoked.

8. Despite the gravity of this matter, it is disheartening to note that there has been no progress in rectifying the situation concerning those significant pieces of legislation. They remain in a state of limbo, unacted upon following the President’s communication, which lacked substantial legal justification.

9. This ongoing scenario poses a grave threat to our legislative authority and, by extension, the democratic principles we strive to uphold. The implications of such executive actions extend far beyond the immediate legislative items at hand. They erode the foundational checks and balances that our forebearers painstakingly established to ensure a vibrant and functioning democracy.