Frankly, Mr. Azar is not making sense. A citizen owes alligence to a country. When you natualize for a country , you acknowledge that you owe allegiance to that country. So until your citizenship is duly given up (you file and receive the proper renounciation certificate that you are no longer a citizen), you still are a person who owes allegiance to that country. The simplicity of the matter is that one way of proving you owe allegiance is that you have a citizenship. Another point is that dual citizenship was not allowed in 1996. I think it was written into law in 1996. When Ghana became independent, people from other West African countries who were in Ghana had the opportunity to become citizens of Ghana. Nothing was said that those people were supposed to give up their original citizenship. So those people were implicitly considered dual citizens and hence were prevented from holding certain offices or ranks in for example the army.
The last time I checked most of the characters that have stolen Ghana's money and resources are full Ghanaian citizens not those with dual citizenship.
Sampson, thank you for the service you're rendering to the motherland. Much respect for you. Must admit, I owe you an apology for a reason you might not even be aware of, but will do so in person when I next visit home. Thank you again. Keep doing what you're doing.
People are watching the program with NDC NPP eyes, that's the major problem of this country... People think that Prof. is doing this because of Gyakyei Quayson, Prof has been saying this long before this current Judgement n he has been consistent. This is the same person who pushed for some amendment in 2012 because he had issues like this, I guess NPP was in Government 2012. This same Prof petitioned supreme court over Demelevo issues but later withdrew because he felt the court was deliberately delaying the case, What happened in the end, the Supreme Court vindicated his stand, Let's watch him with open mind We are free to have different view because he doesn't hold monopoly of the law
The only reason for the interpretation of the court in the Gyakye Quayson’s case is the Amendment of Article 8 by Act 527 (1996). The question is, “if the Supreme Court is interpreting Article 94(2)(a) in 1993, how will they have interpreted it?
There are different types and forms of allegiance of which citizenship is one of them. I find it interesting when some people think allegiance is about extremism or just joining an opposition or force. Anybody who naturizes for a different country other than his or her own birth country is made to swear an Oath to that effect as the final step of the process as a validation. That Oath swearing in, is a declaration of Allegiance. So it's not wrong to say a dual citizen, holds an Allegiance to 2 countries which is the case everywhere. So the supreme court judges are right in the interpretation of the constitution in the case of the James Quayson. It's natural that, people will not be happy with the outcome of judgement especially when it's not in their favour but it doesn't take away the fact that, the judgment is fair. The constitution did not specifically mentioned dual citizenship but it should be clear that, once you swear an Oath to be part of a country, a group or an institution to uphold and defend the interest and the people of that outfit, that is an Allegiance. And that, is the reason why when people don't want to be part of that outfit, they have to renounce their citizenship of allegiance to validate their stance.
Exactly! Thanks many times... And any attempt to explain away as Prof Asare seek to do, will only mean interpreting the law purely on technicalities without reasonable interpretation of law. To Prof Asare differences of words (non allegiance, non dual citizenship) could not be resolved into a higher degree of loyalty... His style is all about technical meaning of words.
Extremely educative program. Prof. Kweku Asare is a real citizen of the soil. I love truthful people. Ghanaians need boldness, fearless and truthful people like prof. May God bless you for this public education 🙏🙌🤝🤝
Our Professor is extremely intelligent .The ball should be thrown to our lawmakers ( parliamentarians) to carefully examine such laws in order to erase all ambiguities.
This's the time to preach the gosple,the good news to the Supreme court of Justice,CJ,AG,SP and etc be born again repent,and be baptized every one of you,in the name of Jesus christ for the remission of sins and you shall received the gift of the Holyghost.Acts2:38-39.Jesus is saying,marvel not l said unto thee, you must be born again.The wind blows where it listen,and you hear the sound thereof,but can not tell whence it come and whether it goes,so is every one tht is born of spiritJn3:3-8.
The right question the good people of Ghana must be asking is whether those we have for leaders genuinely have any devotion or loyalty for this country? Peace out !
In brief James has dual citizenship and owes allegiance to Canada. To be U S citizen one is required to renounce allegiance to any other country. James to me erred
@@benadeskiludi543 yes he owes allegiance to Canada but Prof Asare seeks to downplay or lower that form of allegiance into an (ordinary or "nonharming" allegiance). He says that allegiance (citizenship based allegiance) were considered differently by the framers of the constitution. By so stating, a citizen based allegiance is a 'mere' allegiance that (to him) the framers of the constitution thought was not a big deal hence dual citizens may hold an MPship position (since prohibitted positions for some allegiances are clearly stated). He does make a good discovery for a consideration. But a careful look at the constitution and our laws (where the idea of dual citizenship is nonetheless another form of allegiance to another country other than Ghana alone) will contradict the "spirit" of our laws which ultimately requires a higher form of loyalty (if not absolute) in order to occupy certain sensitive positions like MP even if it is not explicitly stated. In conclusion, I disagree with Prof Asare. And the judges were right on their unanimous ruling.
There were times where some Ghanaians citizens in Ghana owe allegiance to the CIA based on their business interests. This clearly shows citizenship is different from allegiance.
If we define allegiance as loyalty or commitment to something or someone, can we say that we are all loyal or committed to our parents because we are their children? Being born and raised in Ghana makes one a Ghanaian citizen, but does that automatically make that same individual loyal and committed to Ghana?
@@sirlord_7235 yes it does, why do you obey the laws and uphold the laws of the land if you do not hold allegiance to it? In America there are two different things, citizens and Nationality, those with nationality do not hold allegiance to the United States. Once you become a citizen you swear an oath to become allegiance to United States, like the man said in Canada you can file for a separate document to denounce ur allegiance to the Queen. Ghana doesn’t have that law to denounce ur allegiance
@@sirlord_7235 morally one owes loyalty to their parents and family as well, but we are not dealing with morality, this is a case of law not what we think! A nation is govern by laws and constitution while your family is not governed by any of such so you can’t make a comparison between the two, you can rob ur family and you will be forgiven but same can’t be said if you rob the state
Do all Ghanaians hold allegiance to Ghana? If allegiance is automatic by citizenship, why does our president swear oath of allegiance? If allegiance is automatic, why are our politicians corrupt? Are corrupt politicians having allegiance to Ghana?
If you follow him on his other conversations he has said that it time we relook at it because many people have suffered from this misinterpretation of the constitution n Quayson is the lastest victim. So he is not doing this because of this current judgement. He has been very consistent on this
Thanks Prof. I believe your analysis is too simplistic and wrong. The use of the word “OR”” in the Australian case is all inclusive and expansive as compared with the narrow definition of “allegiance” in the Ghana constitution. Both practically and legally, the only way for a citizen to cancel his/her citizenship is to denounce his/her allegiance to the country.
Asare has no allegiance to Ghana. I used to debate him. He states he can have allegiance to the United States and Ghana as well. It is baloney. If he really cares for Ghana, he can just keep his green card. He is a selfish person. His legal submissions on the issue are specious. Even in America, you cannot have dual citizenship and work in the highest and most sensitive levels of government. Asare should leave Ghana alone and stay in America.
@@cojoopoku4946 Where is the insult? The guy once said he owed allegiance to the United States. He was not even born in the United States, but some of you want to make him into some objective fella? I once asked him if the United States and Ghana had a conflict, which side would he be? He is full of it. You can call it an insult, but I know these people such as Asare would choose U.S.A over Ghana any day.
@@sethcofie7395 Keep on gaslighting. Why would a Ghanaian educated using the tax payer's money at Legon all of a sudden claim he has allegiance to the United States and Ghana because he acquired U.S citizenship? Do you know U.S citizenship is a privilege for those who were not born there, and could be taken back? Why is he not on all over America challenging the positions of the courts? We have a lot of people in Ghana today who are self-serving. There is a reason why a naturalized citizen of the U.S cannot become the President of the country. For some weird reason, Asare wants to keep his U.S citizenship and still be allowed to have our public trust. Is he the only one in Ghana with brains? Aren't there many people like he who have only Ghanaian citizenship who can run their mouths as he. I know this guy. This is a guy who supported the murder of Muammar Gaddafi. If he cared about the law, he would not that was against international law. We need to be very careful. A lot of these protagonists are not patriotic. They want a cushy job so they can leave the white man's world in which their opinion does not count.
Some how, his proposition is not about the spirit of the constitution (which eventually would require citizens to have complete loyalty in order to occupy the position of an MP)... He seems to use pure technicalities of law (disregarding the pure essence/spirit of law) despite the fact that he makes a good point that the framers of the constitution knew the difference between "dual citizenship" and "allegiance". He fails to however, adduce clear evidences to support the claim that if the varying articles ( one existing far back as 1969 - as discussed) have complete and independent objectives, and therefore could not have interdependency for which reason the supreme court ruled that dual citizenship and allegiance are intertwined (i.e. the question of loyalty). He should have been able to prove that a certain commentary (albeit not sufficient) made by the framers of the constitution leave no reasonable doubt that the two articles are disjoint indeed.
Some how, his proposition is not about the spirit of the constitution (which eventually would require citizens to have complete loyalty in order to occupy the position of an MP)... He seems to use pure technicalities of law (disregarding the pure essence/spirit of law) despite the fact that he makes a good point that the framers of the constitution knew the difference between "dual citizenship" and "allegiance". He fails to however, adduce clear evidences to support the claim that if the varying articles ( one existing far back as 1969 - as discussed) have complete and independent objectives, and therefore could not have interdependency for which reason the supreme court ruled that dual citizenship and allegiance are intertwined (i.e. the question of loyalty). He should have been able to prove that a certain commentary (albeit not sufficient) made by the framers of the constitution leave no reasonable doubt that the two articles are disjoint indeed.
@@mobilemachine1578 well your opinion.. I don't think you understood my point... He relied on the same reasoning (on the issue of dual citizenship) for the Sakande's case... What was the ruling? Granted that this particular case is different from the Sakande's case; it appears that Sakande's ruling equally resolved to LOYALTY (though the judges knew that there are directives on matters of loyalty in the constitution). And therefore to say that the judges have disregarded the practice of law and have relied on sentiment, in my opinion, will mean that Prof. Asare would prefer technicalities. I rather believe that, "in spirit" the judges were right to resolve all of these on principle of LOYALTY albeit a different modality of loyalty (of course the law describes how the issue of loyalty should be handled that notwithstanding, does not take away this higher degree of loyalty as evidenced by the judges ruling). So Prof. projection is purely on technicalities... In other words, according to prof, if there are portions describing loyalty, allegiance and dual citizenship in the constitution then (without hindsight) the judges have contravene the constitution by stating that ultimately these ( loyalty, non allegiance and non dual citizenship) could be resolved into a higher degree of loyalty. Even though, Prof Asare elaborate a chart to proof his point, but the chart can not disprove that the ultimate purpose of non dual citizenship and or non allegiance to another country could be resolved into a HIGHER DEGREE OF LOYALTY different from "the minor form of loyalty" under the constitution. So for him to say that is not law, to me, means that TECHNICALITY is the ultimate practice of reasonable law.
![เปิดใจ พี่ญา คนรุม หลังทัวร์ลง หนักสุดในชีวิต!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2-OJZRtclro/mqdefault.jpg)
Prof is dammmnnnn smart. I just love listening to him.❤
Frankly, Mr. Azar is not making sense. A citizen owes alligence to a country. When you natualize for a country , you acknowledge that you owe allegiance to that country. So until your citizenship is duly given up (you file and receive the proper renounciation certificate that you are no longer a citizen), you still are a person who owes allegiance to that country. The simplicity of the matter is that one way of proving you owe allegiance is that you have a citizenship. Another point is that dual citizenship was not allowed in 1996. I think it was written into law in 1996. When Ghana became independent, people from other West African countries who were in Ghana had the opportunity to become citizens of Ghana. Nothing was said that those people were supposed to give up their original citizenship. So those people were implicitly considered dual citizens and hence were prevented from holding certain offices or ranks in for example the army.
The last time I checked most of the characters that have stolen Ghana's money and resources are full Ghanaian citizens not those with dual citizenship.
Sampson, thank you for the service you're rendering to the motherland. Much respect for you. Must admit, I owe you an apology for a reason you might not even be aware of, but will do so in person when I next visit home. Thank you again. Keep doing what you're doing.
People are watching the program with NDC NPP eyes, that's the major problem of this country...
People think that Prof. is doing this because of Gyakyei Quayson,
Prof has been saying this long before this current Judgement n he has been consistent.
This is the same person who pushed for some amendment in 2012 because he had issues like this, I guess NPP was in Government 2012.
This same Prof petitioned supreme court over Demelevo issues but later withdrew because he felt the court was deliberately delaying the case,
What happened in the end, the Supreme Court vindicated his stand,
Let's watch him with open mind
We are free to have different view because he doesn't hold monopoly of the law
The only reason for the interpretation of the court in the Gyakye Quayson’s case is the Amendment of Article 8 by Act 527 (1996). The question is, “if the Supreme Court is interpreting Article 94(2)(a) in 1993, how will they have interpreted it?
I don't know why I enjoyed this so much. I had no prior opinion but left educated. Thank you
This discussion was very educative, I really enjoyed it.
For Lawyer Sampson and PROF Asare.
dual citizen's eligibility for Judicial appts in the Ghana Judiciary. Address this issue
There are different types and forms of allegiance of which citizenship is one of them.
I find it interesting when some people think allegiance is about extremism or just joining an opposition or force.
Anybody who naturizes for a different country other than his or her own birth country is made to swear an Oath to that effect as the final step of the process as a validation.
That Oath swearing in, is a declaration of Allegiance.
So it's not wrong to say a dual citizen, holds an Allegiance to 2 countries which is the case everywhere.
So the supreme court judges are right in the interpretation of the constitution in the case of the James Quayson.
It's natural that, people will not be happy with the outcome of judgement especially when it's not in their favour but it doesn't take away the fact that, the judgment is fair.
The constitution did not specifically mentioned dual citizenship but it should be clear that, once you swear an Oath to be part of a country, a group or an institution to uphold and defend the interest and the people of that outfit, that is an Allegiance.
And that, is the reason why when people don't want to be part of that outfit, they have to renounce their citizenship of allegiance to validate their stance.
Exactly! Thanks many times... And any attempt to explain away as Prof Asare seek to do, will only mean interpreting the law purely on technicalities without reasonable interpretation of law. To Prof Asare differences of words (non allegiance, non dual citizenship) could not be resolved into a higher degree of loyalty... His style is all about technical meaning of words.
in what way was the judgement in favour of Prof ??? am missing that part
so how do u answer the question of the prof, or u dont agree there are people who owe allegiance to countries without necessarily being citizens ???
Fortunately he is more Enlightened than all our Ghana supreme Court judges....
Great discussions. My respect to you both.
Very educative and interesting discussion. Prof thanks for the heavy lifting and Sampson thanks for shedding the light on this.
I thank you for the 2012 case which has made me gone for my passport but on this issue, I disagree with you.
Extremely educative program. Prof. Kweku Asare is a real citizen of the soil. I love truthful people. Ghanaians need boldness, fearless and truthful people like prof. May God bless you for this public education 🙏🙌🤝🤝
Our Professor is extremely intelligent .The ball should be thrown to our lawmakers ( parliamentarians) to carefully examine such laws in order to erase all ambiguities.
Very interesting discussion.
Very interesting. This is eyed opening. Thanks for the lecture 🇬🇭
Prof. Azar is brilliant in law.
This's the time to preach the gosple,the good news to the Supreme court of Justice,CJ,AG,SP and etc be born again repent,and be baptized every one of you,in the name of Jesus christ for the remission of sins and you shall received the gift of the Holyghost.Acts2:38-39.Jesus is saying,marvel not l said unto thee, you must be born again.The wind blows where it listen,and you hear the sound thereof,but can not tell whence it come and whether it goes,so is every one tht is born of spiritJn3:3-8.
To PROF Asare and Lawyer Ayenini- Could a dual citizen of USA/Ghana qualify to be a Court of Appeal judge/High Court Judge in Ghana?
Excellent moderation of the discussion Sampson 👍🏾
This is what happens if you use someone’s language to write your Constitution! Confusion Ay3 Basaa.
I'm not a lawyer but I can see clearly that this Prof is doing propagand.
How ?
Prof,Asare is really a teacher, he has simplified the law to the understanding of the lay man. He has to school or teach the school of judges,wow.
Prof you're not making any sense on this occasion. Sampson excellent moderation!
Oh how ?
May be you lack enough sense to understand him
The NPP should wait till Bawumia is dragged to court for his dual citizenship.
The right question the good people of Ghana must be asking is whether those we have for leaders genuinely have any devotion or loyalty for this country?
Peace out !
In brief James has dual citizenship and owes allegiance to Canada. To be U S citizen one is required to renounce allegiance to any other country. James to me erred
are u saying he owes allegiance to canada becos of the dual citizenship or based on what ?????
@@benadeskiludi543 yes he owes allegiance to Canada but Prof Asare seeks to downplay or lower that form of allegiance into an (ordinary or "nonharming" allegiance).
He says that allegiance (citizenship based allegiance) were considered differently by the framers of the constitution. By so stating, a citizen based allegiance is a 'mere' allegiance that (to him) the framers of the constitution thought was not a big deal hence dual citizens may hold an MPship position (since prohibitted positions for some allegiances are clearly stated).
He does make a good discovery for a consideration. But a careful look at the constitution and our laws (where the idea of dual citizenship is nonetheless another form of allegiance to another country other than Ghana alone) will contradict the "spirit" of our laws which ultimately requires a higher form of loyalty (if not absolute) in order to occupy certain sensitive positions like MP even if it is not explicitly stated.
In conclusion, I disagree with Prof Asare. And the judges were right on their unanimous ruling.
There were times where some Ghanaians citizens in Ghana owe allegiance to the CIA based on their business interests. This clearly shows citizenship is different from allegiance.
That’s true but when you neutralize in either Canada or USA, you swear an oath to hold and allegiance to them
Will dual citizens pay taxes like we do? Or the y will just be free riding and just talking big English when the time comes?
it's too easy to find out; if you take a position in gov't example, green card holders joining the US military. Prof. u re the best.
Prof. Can u please educate our attorney General and the baby news reader law student vimlady.
So, after serving in the British "military" is my allegiance officially/automatically becomes invalid??
The EC who is the Independent Elections regulating body, isn't faulted in this case. This is more political than Judicial
OK, maybe this will help; all dual citizens owe allegiance but not people who owe allegiance are dual citizens.
The panel must also answer our online comments question.
I agree with Prof. Asare. Very simple explanation of allegiance being different from dual nationality.
Sorry, prof. Non of the post 1992 ACTS precluded the Acticle 94/2. Specifically, as you read, were without prejudice to the 1992.
Lol this man is funny, how can you be a citizen of a nation and do not hold allegiance with the nation?
If we define allegiance as loyalty or commitment to something or someone, can we say that we are all loyal or committed to our parents because we are their children? Being born and raised in Ghana makes one a Ghanaian citizen, but does that automatically make that same individual loyal and committed to Ghana?
@@sirlord_7235 yes it does, why do you obey the laws and uphold the laws of the land if you do not hold allegiance to it? In America there are two different things, citizens and Nationality, those with nationality do not hold allegiance to the United States. Once you become a citizen you swear an oath to become allegiance to United States, like the man said in Canada you can file for a separate document to denounce ur allegiance to the Queen. Ghana doesn’t have that law to denounce ur allegiance
@@sirlord_7235 morally one owes loyalty to their parents and family as well, but we are not dealing with morality, this is a case of law not what we think! A nation is govern by laws and constitution while your family is not governed by any of such so you can’t make a comparison between the two, you can rob ur family and you will be forgiven but same can’t be said if you rob the state
Do all Ghanaians hold allegiance to Ghana?
If allegiance is automatic by citizenship, why does our president swear oath of allegiance?
If allegiance is automatic, why are our politicians corrupt? Are corrupt politicians having allegiance to Ghana?
That’s interesting question! Which need to be look at. Even though swear allegiance they still sell the country to foreign leaders
Could Prof Be Enjoined / Inter Parte In The Review At SC....??
Can prof fault the 7-0 judges?
Listening to Professor Asare, l think he is confusing himself.
Does this disqualification cover the position of Vice President?
So Prof, was this explanation not existing when it was applied to the Late Bawku MP?
🤣🤣🤣 as3m oo eeeih
If you follow him on his other conversations he has said that it time we relook at it because many people have suffered from this misinterpretation of the constitution n Quayson is the lastest victim.
So he is not doing this because of this current judgement.
He has been very consistent on this
Thanks Prof. I believe your analysis is too simplistic and wrong. The use of the word “OR”” in the Australian case is all inclusive and expansive as compared with the narrow definition of “allegiance” in the Ghana constitution. Both practically and legally, the only way for a citizen to cancel his/her citizenship is to denounce his/her allegiance to the country.
Asare has no allegiance to Ghana. I used to debate him. He states he can have allegiance to the United States and Ghana as well. It is baloney. If he really cares for Ghana, he can just keep his green card. He is a selfish person. His legal submissions on the issue are specious. Even in America, you cannot have dual citizenship and work in the highest and most sensitive levels of government. Asare should leave Ghana alone and stay in America.
Must you insult him to make your point? I disagree with him as well but I won't insult him.
@@cojoopoku4946 Valid point my friend 🇬🇭🇬🇭
Those who don't have any good thing to say use insults.
@@cojoopoku4946 Where is the insult? The guy once said he owed allegiance to the United States. He was not even born in the United States, but some of you want to make him into some objective fella? I once asked him if the United States and Ghana had a conflict, which side would he be? He is full of it. You can call it an insult, but I know these people such as Asare would choose U.S.A over Ghana any day.
@@sethcofie7395 Keep on gaslighting. Why would a Ghanaian educated using the tax payer's money at Legon all of a sudden claim he has allegiance to the United States and Ghana because he acquired U.S citizenship? Do you know U.S citizenship is a privilege for those who were not born there, and could be taken back? Why is he not on all over America challenging the positions of the courts? We have a lot of people in Ghana today who are self-serving. There is a reason why a naturalized citizen of the U.S cannot become the President of the country. For some weird reason, Asare wants to keep his U.S citizenship and still be allowed to have our public trust. Is he the only one in Ghana with brains? Aren't there many people like he who have only Ghanaian citizenship who can run their mouths as he. I know this guy. This is a guy who supported the murder of Muammar Gaddafi. If he cared about the law, he would not that was against international law. We need to be very careful. A lot of these protagonists are not patriotic. They want a cushy job so they can leave the white man's world in which their opinion does not count.
Ne kora koraa ne s3n??
I don't know what this professor is talking about. All his arguments are defeating his proposition
Some how, his proposition is not about the spirit of the constitution (which eventually would require citizens to have complete loyalty in order to occupy the position of an MP)... He seems to use pure technicalities of law (disregarding the pure essence/spirit of law) despite the fact that he makes a good point that the framers of the constitution knew the difference between "dual citizenship" and "allegiance". He fails to however, adduce clear evidences to support the claim that if the varying articles ( one existing far back as 1969 - as discussed) have complete and independent objectives, and therefore could not have interdependency for which reason the supreme court ruled that dual citizenship and allegiance are intertwined (i.e. the question of loyalty). He should have been able to prove that a certain commentary (albeit not sufficient) made by the framers of the constitution leave no reasonable doubt that the two articles are disjoint indeed.
Why not admit that you simply did not understand what he was saying? No shame in that, you know
Absolutely, his argument, if you follow carefully, is self defeating.
Unfortunately, Sir, the more you try to make sense, the more convoluted your argument becomes.
I would stick to accounting if I were you.
Some how, his proposition is not about the spirit of the constitution (which eventually would require citizens to have complete loyalty in order to occupy the position of an MP)... He seems to use pure technicalities of law (disregarding the pure essence/spirit of law) despite the fact that he makes a good point that the framers of the constitution knew the difference between "dual citizenship" and "allegiance". He fails to however, adduce clear evidences to support the claim that if the varying articles ( one existing far back as 1969 - as discussed) have complete and independent objectives, and therefore could not have interdependency for which reason the supreme court ruled that dual citizenship and allegiance are intertwined (i.e. the question of loyalty). He should have been able to prove that a certain commentary (albeit not sufficient) made by the framers of the constitution leave no reasonable doubt that the two articles are disjoint indeed.
What a long-winded way of saying, "The prof should have done this and that even though I still wouldn't be convinced".
@@mobilemachine1578 well your opinion.. I don't think you understood my point... He relied on the same reasoning (on the issue of dual citizenship) for the Sakande's case... What was the ruling?
Granted that this particular case is different from the Sakande's case; it appears that Sakande's ruling equally resolved to LOYALTY (though the judges knew that there are directives on matters of loyalty in the constitution). And therefore to say that the judges have disregarded the practice of law and have relied on sentiment, in my opinion, will mean that Prof. Asare would prefer technicalities. I rather believe that, "in spirit" the judges were right to resolve all of these on principle of LOYALTY albeit a different modality of loyalty (of course the law describes how the issue of loyalty should be handled that notwithstanding, does not take away this higher degree of loyalty as evidenced by the judges ruling).
So Prof. projection is purely on technicalities... In other words, according to prof, if there are portions describing loyalty, allegiance and dual citizenship in the constitution then (without hindsight) the judges have contravene the constitution by stating that ultimately these ( loyalty, non allegiance and non dual citizenship) could be resolved into a higher degree of loyalty.
Even though, Prof Asare elaborate a chart to proof his point, but the chart can not disprove that the ultimate purpose of non dual citizenship and or non allegiance to another country could be resolved into a HIGHER DEGREE OF LOYALTY different from "the minor form of loyalty" under the constitution.
So for him to say that is not law, to me, means that TECHNICALITY is the ultimate practice of reasonable law.
This is a lie too far. Your argument is total elasticity and nonsense.