Why is the Council of State members receiving salaries and ex-gratia when the Constitution says otherwise

In addressing this question, let’s consider Chapter 8 that talks about THE EXECUTIVES and Chapter 9 that talks about THE COUNCIL OF STATE of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana.

Chapter 9 Article 89 clause 7 (i.e. Art 89/7) which states that: “The Chairman and the members of the Council of State be entitled to such allowances and privileges as may be determined in accordance with article 71 of the Constitution”.

The key word here is Allowances and Privileges.
I will not go into the detail who article 71 office holders are but will dwell on the emoluments.

Chapter 8 Article 71 – Determination of Certain Emoluments, so Article 71 clause 3 (i.e. Art 71/3) which states “For the purposes of this article, and except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, “salaries” includes allowances, facilities and privileges and retiring benefits or awards.”

As the Constitution clearly states, article 71 office holders who receives salaries are, by default, entitled to receive retiring benefits such as “ex-gratia” as article 71/3 defines what salaries entails.

The Constitution made it clear and listed the beneficiaries of office holders in Article 71 who should receive both salaries and allowances (see Art 71/1 of the Constitution), which excludes the Council of State members. The Constitution clearly states that the Council of State members should be entitled to allowances and privileges, and not both salaries and allowances (see Art 89/7 of the Constitution).

As with the definition of salaries in Art 71/3 of the Constitution, only office holders who receive salaries are those who are entitled to retiring benefits or awards (aka “ex-gratia”) and not those office holders who only receives allowances and privileges as in the case the Council of State members.

So, if the Constitution doesn’t state that the Council of State (CoS) members are to be paid salaries, why are they being paid salaries and, in turn, awarded or given “ex-gratia” which is classed as retirement benefits after their term of office?

Is it the case that some illegalities have been going on and still going on since the coming into effect of the Constitution by paying the CoS members salaries and, by default, entitled to retirement benefits which the Constitution in Article 89/7 did not state that they are entitle to salaries?

Can future administration/parliament correct this anomalies by stopping the payment of salaries to the Council of State members that entitled them the “ex-gratia” and pay them the allowances or the nation looks on for this status quo to continue and become part of the norm?

What was the thinking behind the framers of the Constitution when they knew, for example, that Chief Justices (CJs) retires on their salaries as pension benefits, the Chiefs of Defence Staff (CDSs) and the Inspector Generals of Police (IGPs) who receives their pension benefits on retirement as prescribed by their respective institutions’ regulations supported by the Constitution and, who are mandated to be appointed as Council of State members regarding Art 89/7?

If the framers of the Constitution were of the view that the retired CJ, CDS and IGP appointed as CoS members can receive salaries and hence entitled them to another retirement benefits while they are already receiving their retirement benefits from their previous jobs/institutions and by extension all CoS members be paid salaries, why wasn’t that stated clearly as in Article 71/1 office holders emoluments?

Did the framers of the constitution were of the view that since the retired CJ, CDS and IGP will be CoS members and cannot receive another retirement benefits on top of what they already receive from their previous jobs/institutions inform them to state clearly in the constitution that all CoS members should be given allowances and privileges and not both salaries and allowances as stated in Article 71/1?

As anyone can attest to, retirement benefits or pension benefits comes partly from salaries contributions of the employee, that said, those receiving only allowances for work done may not receive retirement benefits since pension contributions are not taken from their allowances received as in the case of Ghana where pension contributions are calculated from the employee’s basic salary.

From this piece, do you think that constitutionally the Council of State members are to be paid salaries and entitled them to retiring benefits i.e. ex-gratia?