By Kenneth Agyei KURANCHIE, Editor in-Chief
Ghana faces a constitutional crisis this week. In all likelihood, there will be actual blows on the floor of parliament
as both the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and the New Patriotic Party (NPP) square off to establish who
forms the Majority. The two sides are unlikely to arrive at a decision through dialogue. In all likelihood, actual
blows would resolve the impasse. And maybe not even then.
The sad aspect of this development is that the crisis was wholly avoidable, from day one.
To begin with, Article 97. (1)(g) and (h) of the 1992 Constitution are clear and begs of little ambiguity. It states;
“A member of Parliament shall vacate his seat in parliament-
“(g) if he leaves the party of which he was a member at the time of his election to Parliament to join another party or
seeks to remain in Parliament as an independent member; or
“(h)if he was elected a member of Parliament as an independent member and joins a political party.”
These provisions are quite clear. There are four members of Parliament who have either left their political parties, or
came to parliament as independents but have now joined a political party.”
However, the conditions stated above, for now, can only be termed as allegations, even though we all know, after
the Electoral Commission have closed nominations, that this is indeed a fact.
To execute actual action on this matter, a proper action should be instituted, in a court of law.
This means that the statement by the NDC Caucus in parliament last week drawing the attention of Parliament to the
development, was not the way to go.
Having adopted that path, the Speaker of Parliament, Mr. Alban Kingsford Sumana Bagbin, decided to arrogate to
himself a power he does not have under the 1992 Constitution.
With regard to the powers of the Speaker, the 1992 Constitution is quite clear. It states under Article 95. (1);
“(1) There shall be a Speaker of Parliament who shall be elected by members of Parliament from among persons
who are members of Parliament or who are qualified to be elected as members of Parliament.”
Article 101 further states;
“The Speaker shall preside in Parliament at all sittings and in his absence a Deputy Speaker shall preside.”
Article 104 states;
“(1)Except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, matters in Parliament shall be determined by the votes of
the majority of members present and voting, with at least half of all members in Parliament present.
“(2) The Speaker shall have neither an original nor casting vote.”
From the above, it immediately becomes clear that Parliament has not taken any decision on the status of the erring
(for want of the better word) members of Parliament. With the greatest of respect, Mr. Bagbin, as Speaker, cannot,
by any stretch of the imagination, be described as Parliament. He is not. And even if he was, the Constitution is quite
clear that he is NOT to take any decisions (neither an original nor casting vote) and decisions in parliament are
taken by members present and voting.
One can therefore state with all confidence, that no decision has been taken on the floor of Parliament about the four
MPs. The best thing Bagbin could have done, when the matter came up, was to put it to a vote for members to
decide, with the cited MPs abstaining.
But Bagbin decided to take the law into his own hands. He should have been confronted, as soon as he announced
his decision that he was going to come out with a ‘ruling’ on the calamity of his ways. But NPP side allowed the
point to slide. Bagbin should have been confronted, right there and then.
STAY OF EXECUTION AND THE SUPREME COURT
Then, having allowed the real opportunity to slide, NPP further compounded the situation by rushing off to the
Supreme Court, with an ex parte application, for a Stay of Execution.
To begin with, as is widely legally known, Stay of Executions are with regard to judicial judgments. When a court
grants a judgment, its executable parts, can be stayed.
Alban Bagbin is not a Court. Whatever decision he gave above is void ab initio and of no consequence.
The oddity should have struck the judges of the Supreme Court immediately. And proceeding from that, the NPP
should have been advised to go back to get its house in order.
The path that the Supreme Court embarked upon, with all due respect, is deeply embarrassing. With elections fast
approaching, the Judiciary has a duty to clamor for itself an image of impartiality, steadiness, clarity and firmness.
The Judiciary cannot afford to make any more such serious decisions that lead to such general umbrage from
members of the Bar and judicial watchers. To be a truly impartial arbiter, and to be as such, is an image the Judiciary
should bend over backwards to maintain.
WAY FORWARD
First, the NDC side should legitimately accept to go back to its former positions, and begin the necessary processes,
either in court, or under a certificate of urgency in parliament for the proper thing to be done.
No matter what the likes of Dr. Ato Forson believes, the principle of Audi alteram partem, meaning "listen to the
other side", or "let the other side be heard as well", is very much a part of our laws. The cited MPs have a right to be
heard. Then Parliament can go into a sitting of the Whole to decide their fate.
It certainly should not be left to the Speaker. It is not his job.
Or, the NDC can go to court. And the court must give a fast and expeditious ruling that would save it some of its
battered image.
LATEST
We are the Majority and will Jealously Protect our New Majority status- Ato Forson
The new Majority Leader Dr. Casiel Ato Forson has pooh-poohed the ruling by the Supreme Court saying they are
now the Majority in Parliament and will therefore jealously protect their new status.
According to him, the Speaker’s ruling which was premised on a precedent by Former Speaker Prof. Mile Ocquaye
makes them the legitimate majority in Parliament.
Dr. Ato Forson was speaking at a news conference at the Parliament House on Sunday.
“We are the Majority and will Jealously Protect our newly Majority status and we will not abdicate our status as
majority”, the new Majority Leader emphasized.
He argued that any interference of the business of Parliament is unlawful, nullified and void.
He also revealed that the new majority is going use their numbers to abolish the e-levy and betting tax.
It would be recalled leader of NPP Caucus immediately run to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court set aside
the ruling by the Speaker.
But the new majority leader insists they will resist any attempt to deny them of their status.
The legislators affected by the ruling are the NDC’s Peter Yaw Kwakye Ackah of Amenfi Central constituency,
Andrew Amoakoh Asiamah of Fomena, Kojo Asante, NPP MP for Suhum in the Eastern Region, and NPP’s
Cynthia Morrison of Agona West constituency.
