In Ghana, for the separation of powers, we have three arms of government, the Executive, the Legislative who are lawmakers and the Judiciary who are custodians of the law.
Each of these arms are guided by laws on how to run its business. Parliament has it laws and if today, the Speaker of Parliament uses Article 97 (1g and 1h) to remove from the House, four MPs who violated the law, there is clash between Parliament and the Apex Court. What is Art. 97 in Ghana’s 1992 Constitution saying?
On the tenure of office of Members of Parliament, Article 97 says (1) 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 candidate and joins a political party.
So, what is the clash about? Four sitting MPs, Andrew Asiamah, (Independent) Fomena Constituency and 2nd Deputy Speaker; Cynthia Morrison (NPP) Agona; Kwadwo Asante (NPP) Suhum and Peter Yaw Kwakye-Ackah (NDC) Amenfi Central, decided to contest the 2024 Parliamentary elections on tickets other than what got them to Parliament.
Looking at the law, they have all violated Art 97 (1g and 1h) and should immediately vacate their seats. Upon being notified, the Speaker, Rt. Hon. Alban Bagbin ruled on it, and removed the four from the House.
This happened before, in October 2020, when the NPP referred the law to the then Speaker, Rt. Hon. Mike Ocquayeand had removed from Parliament, Andrew Asiamah, an NPP MP, who intended contesting elections on independent ticket. This was done and the NPP celebrated.
Four years later, Asiamah again together with three others violated Art. 97 and when the Speaker was notified, they were removed from the House. But this time the NPP run to the Supreme Court and the Speaker’s decision was overturned.How can the NPP use this law to settle scores with its MP in 2020, but today is saying the Speaker had no right to apply that same law?
Art. 97, is so clear, so why did the Supreme Court not uphold Bagbin’s decision? Well, it said among other things that the four constituencies will lose their voices in the House. But wait! Did the NDC not cry to court, saying the people of Guan were denied a voice in Parliament, but today it is saying four constituencies must be denied their voices in the House? I am confused, by this double-standard.
In the case of Guan, it was constitutionally impossible to create a constituency before General Elections, due the delay caused by some SALL chiefs when they challenged the creation of Oti region, in court. NDC made horrible noises that the people of Guan were denied their constitutional right to have a voice in Parliament.
And how can the custodians of the Law say provisions of a law should not be applied? And how can the Judiciary decide how a law, clearly written should be implemented, in the direct opposite way?
The problem we have in this country is the NPP and the NDC, who will always twist the law to suit their intentions. A law that is good to them today, can be said to be a bad law tomorrow if it does not favour them. It is only in Ghana that the law is not blind.
The violation of Art. 97 has occurred a number of times in Parliament, but no objections were ever raised until October 2020, when the NPP reminded all Ghanaians that there is a law like that.
Some sitting MPs in the past, Yaomi Labik (Bunkpurugu-Yunyoo, 2000); (Abubaker Siddique (Salaga, 2004); Rashid Bawa (Akan 2004); Osei-Owusu (Bekwai, 2012), William Akoto (Birem North, 2004) and Teye Nyaunu (Lower Manya, 2008) violated Art. 97, and all went scot-free. So, the question is, if the NPP had not push for Art. 97 to be applied, would it have been used today?
Now the country is split into two, with some supporting the Speaker and others hailing the Supreme Court. As for me I am very confused. Can the Supreme Court determine that no one has any right to separate with his girlfriend even if there is evidence that the girl was cheating on him?
I am very confused. How can a law, be interpretated differently? And all who work in the legal profession call themselves, learned. And so, only they can tell us the letter ‘A,’ we see, is in fact, the letter ‘Z,’ and expect us to accept it, because that is the law. Hmmm, education must be our major problem. But we who are not learned, are knowledgeable and wise, and just as the Lord said “for the lack of knowledge my people, perish,” let the learned continue to be learned, we will continue to be knowledgeable.
Hmmm, the Law again. I am confused for how can two learned people meet in court and disagree to agree, while two knowledgeable people will meet and agree to agree? As it is, the lawmakers are in conflict with the custodians of the law and the confusion is now basaa.
By Hon Daniel Dugan
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect The Chronicle’s stance.
