The military personnel were not in Parliament to interfere with proceedings, but to sniff for explosive devices or harmful substances, the Ghana Armed Forces (GAF) has clarified.
According to GAF, the military personnel were deployed on the request of the Speaker of Parliament, through the Clerk.
GAF has said that the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, on Monday, October 21, 2024 formally made the request to the GAF, to conduct routine canine and bomb sweeps of the Chamber, which is a “standard procedure.”
A statement dated Tuesday, October 22, 2024 signed by the Director General Public Relations of GAF, Brigadier General E. Quarshie-Aggrey, attempted to kill the misinformation, which he said, if allowed to fester, would tarnish the reputation of GAF.
“The Speaker of Parliament, through the Clerk, formally requested security assistance from GAF for routine canine and bomb sweeps of the Chamber,” the GAF said.
The release continued that “it is essential to clarify that GAF personnel were not present at the Grand Arena to interfere with parliamentary proceedings.
“Their role was exclusively to conduct these routine sweeps to ensure the safety and security of the facility by checking for any explosive devices or harmful substances.”
Assuring the public that the GAF remained committed to ensuring the security of the state, the statement also urged the media to refrain from disseminating false information and to report responsibly on matters of public interest.
REQUEST
The Chronicle has also sighted the letter from Parliament that requested the assistance of GAF, an application that was premised on the “pronouncement” of the Speaker on the controversial seat saga last Thursday.
“The Rt Hon. Speaker would, therefore, be grateful if the Ghana Armed Forces would conduct canine and bomb sweeps of the Chamber on the first sitting day of the week (mostly Tuesdays),” Parliament told the GAF.
DEMOCRACY TEST
In the last months, Ghana’s 32-year-standing democracy has been witnessing controversies in the run-up to the 8th consecutive general election under the current Republican dispensation.
The current controversy arising from the vacation or otherwise of some four parliamentary seats placed the entire nation on tenterhooks, with fears of turmoil.
The pronouncement by the Speaker that four seats are vacant, followed by the drama by the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and National Democratic Congress (NDC) Members of Parliament, created tension in the country.
As if that was not enough, the judiciary stepping in to stay the execution of the pronouncement by the Speaker further heightened the tension. Legal brains and political analysts are split over the ongoing test of the democracy.
NO DRAMA
The NPP MPs assured the public that they would not be part of the drama the NDC MPs were seeking, but would rather rely on the law.
On Tuesday, the NDC MPs, who had declared themselves as the majority, occupied the seats on the right-hand side of the Speaker, but the NPP MPs decided to yield the Chamber to them, to avoid any chaos, as the NPP MPs were not ready to sit on the left-hand side of the Speaker.
The NDC MPs maintained that they were operating with the communication by the Speaker on Thursday, which translated them into having more seats in the House than the NPP MPs.
According to the NDC caucus, they will only change their stance of referring to themselves as the majority, if the Speaker gives another communication to restore the composition to what it was earlier.
RULING SERVED
Speaker Bagbin took his seat after meeting leaders of both caucuses at a pre-sitting meeting and informed them that he was going to adjourn indefinitely.
In the Chamber, Speaker Bagbin followed the normal procedure of leading the House to pray and recite the national pledge, but skipped a roll call of the House, which at the moment was made up of some members of the NDC MPs.
In his communication to the House yesterday, Speaker Bagbin mentioned that he had been served the ruling of the Supreme Court in relation to the matter, but did not say more.
“Yesterday (Monday), I received a process from the Supreme Court, which is a ruling from the Supreme Court, pursuant to an ex parte application, directing Parliament to recognise and allow the four affected members of Parliament to duly represent their constituents and conduct full scope of duties of their offices as members of Parliament, pending the final determination of a suit filed by Honourable Alexander Afenyo-Markin.”
QUORUM
The Speaker then notified the House about the lack of quorum to take decisions, except for the transaction of business, citing Article 102 of the 1992 Constitution and Order 64.1 of the Standing Orders of Parliament.
Article 102 of the Constitution reads that a quorum of Parliament, apart from the person presiding, shall be one-third of all the members of Parliament.
However, Article 104(1) forbids the House in taking decisions, as the Speaker noted that “the numbers [in the Chamber] are not sufficient for us to take decisions.”
Article 104(1) says, except as otherwise provided in the 1992 Constitution, matters in Parliament shall be determined by the votes of the majority of members present and voting with at least half of all the members of Parliament present.
“Honourable Members, we don’t have at least half of all the members of Parliament present [in the Chamber].
ADJOURN SINE DINE
Consequently, the Speaker indicated that he would adjourn the House, particularly as there was a question on the composition and constitution of Parliament and the public interest in the issue.
“I want to quote Standing Orders 59.1. It says the Speaker may, in consultation with leadership, suspend a meeting of the House indefinitely or for a period determined by the Speaker, having regard to the public interests and the exigencies of the state of affairs in the country.
“Honourable Members, I have consulted leadership, and I am exercising my discretion to decide to suspend the meeting of the House indefinitely. The House is accordingly adjourned sine die,” Bagbin said.
