https://www.myjoyonline.com/let-them-burn-the-sea-dont-return-if-parliament-is-recalled-asiedu-nketiah-to-ndc-mps/?utm_source=vuukle&utm_medium=talk_of_town-------https://www.myjoyonline.com/let-them-burn-the-sea-dont-return-if-parliament-is-recalled-asiedu-nketiah-to-ndc-mps/

The National Chairman of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Johnson Asiedu Nketiah, has instructed the party’s Members of Parliament to boycott any emergency recall of Parliament, accusing such sessions of being driven by corrupt motives.

Addressing supporters in the Western Region on Saturday, November 16, Asiedu Nketiah alleged that, with the 2024 general elections on the horizon, the majority caucus had no legitimate reason to reconvene Parliament other than to further questionable objectives.

He said, “No NDC MP should set foot in Parliament. If they wish, they can go and burn the sea. There is no work in Parliament that can be considered an emergency. There’s nothing urgent. Parliament would only be recalled so they can continue with the rampant corruption they have carried out over the past eight years."

Asiedu Nketiah claimed that the majority side still aimed to push their corrupt agenda even with just three weeks left before the general elections.

He emphasised that NDC MPs would not engage in any such activities, asserting, "We won’t go near them today or tomorrow. Judges may say what they want, but Parliament has its own rules, and we will adhere to those.”

His statement follows the Supreme Court's decision on Tuesday, November 12, to overturn Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin's declaration that four parliamentary seats were vacant. This ruling was in favour of a legal challenge brought forward by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin.

In a detailed ruling delivered on Thursday, November 14, the five justices who sided with the Majority Leader concluded that a parliamentary seat could only be declared vacant if a Member of Parliament switched political parties while still holding their position in Parliament.

However, two justices dissented, asserting that the Supreme Court lacked the authority to rule on the matter, highlighting a difference in interpretation regarding the Court's jurisdiction in such cases.

DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.


DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.