When the Speaker of Parliament enforced Art. 97 (g/h), in the House, which made four MPs, running on tickets other than the ones they entered Parliament with, to be kicked out, and subsequent stay of execution order given by the Supreme Court, we have been tortured with cacophony of songs, which are breaking our ear drums and blowing our minds out. While we are at it, some Ghanaians have come out to strongly condemn the leadership of the House and the Apex Court.
In my opinion, whatever comes out from our judges are their opinions. We may agree or disagree. I, with little or no knowledge of law, seem to understand why the Supreme Court went the way it did. The word, shall, in Art. 97 (1) which reads, a member of Parliament shall vacate his seat in Parliament, denotes a time in the future, going by its definition in the English dictionary. If so, then the Supreme Court could be fair in its pronouncement. But why should it be condemned as if this is the first time, the Supreme Court had passed a controversial verdict?
In August 2013, while giving the Supreme Court verdict on the Election Petition, the lead judge, Justice Atuguba, threw his Catholic virtues aside and begun by telling Ghanaians that no-where in Africa were elections results overturned in favour of the opposition, preparing minds that there is no way the then opposition leader, Nana Addo was going to win the case.
He then went on to disregard Art. 49 (3), which made it mandatory for the presiding officer to sign the declaration of results at the polling station. Thousands of pink sheets were not signed by the presiding officers; thus, such results should have been nullified. If the Supreme Court had abided by that law, the verdict would have gone in favour of Nana Addo.
This situation is worse than what the current Supreme Court’s position of the vacant seats in Parliament
On this issue, the question is, can Art. 97 (1g/h) be applied as it stands?
Let us go through memory lane again and ask hard questions. From 2000 to 2012, some sitting MPs contested elections on different tickets. Why was Art. 97 (1g/h), not invoked then? Does that mean that Parliament was overlooking illegalities, then? Does that mean our lawmakers voluntarily went blind to this law? Hon Haruna Iddrisu who was in Parliament since 2005, never noticed that the law was being broken? Can we trust him as someone who will protect and enforce laws?
In 2020, the NPP suddenly realised that it had a law in Art. 9 (1) of its constitution which makes a member to be immediately expelled from the party, if he/she supports a candidate not fielded by the party or contests against the party’s choice of candidate in any election. So, the NPP wrote to then Speaker Mike Ocquaye to remove Hon Andrew Asiamah Amoako from House, because for going independent he ceased to be a member of the party. The Speaker, did just that and Hon Asiamah was removed.
Recently, in Parliament, Hon Joe Ghartey, while disagreeing with the Speaker, stated that in 2020, it was the NPP as a party that expelled Hon Asiamah from the party, making him ineligible to be an MP, and not Parliament.
This even raises some questions. If the NPP wants to say that what it did in 2020 was legal and justified, for that was what it should be according to its constitution, I will not contest that.
My question is, if the NPP noticed in 2020, that its sitting MP was seeking re-elections on independent ticket, why did it lose sight of the fact that two sitting MPs were contesting re-elections on independent tickets in 2024 and they should be treated just as Hon Asiamah was, in 2020?
In 2008, it failed to expel, four members who contested on independent tickets against the party’s choices in 2008? Saani Iddi (Wulensi), Joseph Osei-Bonsu (Bekwai), Ofori-Kuragu (Bosome Freho) and Seth Adjei (Nkawkaw) contested NPP candidates in their constituencies, but they were not expelled. Does that mean that the party will only pick and choose who to punish and who to spare? This is undemocratic and gross injustice.
To the NDC, it should be honest to answer this question. Since it never raised issues with sitting MPs contesting on other tickets, could it be that the opposition party saw an opportunity to become majority in Parliament if the law was applied? Is this not a case of insincerity and dishonesty? If a law must only be applied when it will favour oneself but left alone when it would not, simply put, it shows how unlawful the people are.
By the way, will the NDC had asked the Speaker to invoke Art 97 (1 g/h) if it was only its MP, Hon Kwakye-Ackah, of Amenfi Central, who is seeking re-election on independent ticket?
Rev. Fr. Joseph Sablah of Mary Mother of Good Counsel Catholic Church, during his sermon, yesterday said, “the most important question in life is not who is majority and who is minority. The most important question in life is love.”
How much love do the MPs and the Supreme Court justices have for Ghana? Meanwhile, can we have some sanity and good sense, please?
Hon. Daniel Dugan
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect The Chronicle’s stance.
