The Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Godfred Yeboah Dame, has refuted claims that there is an injunction restraining Parliament from approving nominees of the President.
According to the Attorney General, whereas there is a suit challenging the president’s authority to relieve and reassign his ministers, the same does not affect new nominations.
Yeboah Dame has written to the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, drawing his attention to the fact that the House is not inhibited from approving the new nominations.
“I respectfully bring the matters set out above to your attention and advise that Parliament is not inhibited from proceeding with the approval processes for the ministerial and deputy ministerial nominees duly presented by the President, in accordance with articles 78(1) and 79(1) of the Constitution.”
SUSPEND APPROVAL
The Speaker of Parliament, while addressing members of the House, informed them about the receipt of a process from the Court, titled Rockson-Nelson Etse K. Dafeamekpor v. The Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney-General (Suit No. J1/12/2024).
He said it was served on March 19, 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 the President until the provisions of the constitution are satisfied.
“Hon. Members, in 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,” he added.
It would be recalled that in the letter to the Clerk of parliament, the President’s Executive Secretary told the former to ‘cease and desist’ from transmitting the bill to the presidency, until the court issues surrounding the anti-gay bill were resolved.
The Speaker has also said Parliament has been injuncted with regards to the vetting and approval of the nominees, so it is unable to continue the process until the matter is determined.
NO INJUNCTION
However, the Attorney General, who is the legal representative of the state, including Parliament, informs the Speaker that there is no such injunction.
He attached the result of a search he conducted at the court registry to come to the firm conclusion that Parliament had not been restrained from vetting and approving the nominees.
The plaintiff has not filed an application for interlocutory injunction “seeking to restrain the Speaker from proceeding with the vetting and approval of the names of the persons submitted by His Excellency the President…”, or indeed, any other interlocutory relief.
Thus, there is nothing before the Supreme Court that may constitute a restraint or fetter on Parliament from proceeding with the approval of ministerial and deputy ministerial nominees presented to Parliament by the President, in accordance with articles 78(1) and 79(1) of the Constitution.
He indicated that the relief stated on the writ filed, only purports to be an order of interlocutory injunction with regards to the vetting and approval; that is not an application for interlocutory injunction.
He explained that every application for interlocutory relief in any of the Superior Courts must be by a motion filed and praying for the desired relief.
Dame added that the mere statement on a writ of summons of a prayer for interlocutory relief is inconsequential and of no effect, as it does not constitute a pending motion for such a relief.
NO PREJUDICE
According to the Attorney General, the substance of Mr. Dafeamekpor’s suit is a challenge on the power of the President to relieve ministers serving in his government of their portfolios and reassign them to different ministries.
“It has no bearing on the approval of persons newly nominated by the President, as Ministers and Deputy Ministers and duly presented to Parliament for approval in accordance with articles 78(1) and 79(1) of the Constitution.
“There is no risk of prejudice to the authority of the Supreme Court in determining the substance and essence of the suit filed by Mr. Rockson-Nelson Etsa Dafeamekpor, should Parliament continue the approval processes for the nominees,” Dame posited.
CONTEMPT
A letter from the Executive Secretary to the President, Nana Asante Bediatuo, directing the Clerk to Parliament, Cyril Nsiah, to cease and desist from transmitting the anti-gay bill to President Akufo-Addo for his assent, got Speaker Bagbin annoyed.
According to the third highest personality in Ghana, the letter from Bediatuo to his outfit was contemptuous.
MAJORITY DISAGREEMENT
The majority in Parliament, however, disagreed with the position taken by the Speaker not to continue with the approval of the ministerial nominees.
Speaking to the press in Parliament shortly after Bagbin’s assertions, the Majority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, criticised the Speaker for pronouncing judgement.
He was also not happy that Bagbin used unsavoury language to describe the president, stating that while disagreement is acceptable in a democracy, denigration is not.
He said, “Mr. Speaker went beyond expressing disagreement and rather pronounced judgement on what, in his view, was wrong.
“Mr. Speaker did not only stop there; he also used very unsavoury words to describe Mr. President. We believe that in a democracy, we have our right to disagree on views expressed, but we do not have the right to say things to denigrate another. This, we think, is very unacceptable.
“Mr. Speaker said the President has undermined democracy and that he should have resorted to the Constitution in making certain communications to the House.
“We, in the majority, beg to disagree with the position taken by Mr. Speaker. If you carefully read the letter that was sent to Parliament, Mr. President limited himself to the process before the court and the fact that Parliament itself has filed an affidavit in opposition and is in court.
In fact, Parliament is a party to the suit, so for us, we do not see how this would have to affect the proceedings of Parliament. In any event, Mr. Speaker has always deferred to the leadership of the House to guide him in the conduct of business,” he said.
The Majority said it observed that the Speaker, who took the chair in the middle of business of the house, and just after making his views on the Nana Bediatuo’s letter known, adjourned the House sine die.
He did not allow the leadership to guide him on the order of business, as the practice has always been that items discussed in conclave are exhausted on the day of recess before adjournment.
He said, “This morning, the leadership of the House sat together to discuss the various items to be taken. We have finished some, but there were some that we were supposed to take and we were told that Mr. Speaker would have to take the chair. It is very disappointing that after
Mr. Speaker had made known his own views about the letter sent from the presidency to the Clerk, he adjourned the house without giving room for the leadership of the house to even comment. This we find very strange; this is a democracy, and we believe, as Mr. Speaker himself said, that this ‘impasse calls for reflection’. I will pray that out to Mr. Speaker that we all need to reflect on the way forward as a nation,” Afenyo-Markin added.
- Meanwhile, the Minority, at a press conference on Thursday, March 21, 2024, said they fully support the decision and position the Speaker took.
