Closing Ghana’s AI Accountability Gap: Constitutionalism, Public Law and Institutional Responsibility in the Age of Intelligent Systems

The analysis so far has shown that the Ghanaian legal order contains substantial resources for governing public AI, and that its weaknesses lie less in an absence of principle than in the points at which principle is applied. This Part develops a doctrine that relocates those points: the doctrine of constitutional answerability. Its organizing idea is simple. Public power in Ghana is exercised in the name of the people and within the limits of the Constitution. An institution that exercises such power must therefore be able, at all times, to answer three questions about any decision it makes: who decided, on what basis, and by what route the decision may be corrected. An institution that has arranged its affairs so that it cannot answer those questions does more than expose itself to an adverse finding in a particular case. It fails to satisfy a standing condition of the lawful exercise of its powers.