The Supreme Court has provided a detailed explanation for its decision to uphold the suit brought by Majority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin.

According to the apex court, a Member of Parliament (MP) is deemed to have vacated their seat if they change their political affiliation and continue to serve in Parliament under a new party identity.

This ruling supports the suit filed by the Majority Leader, clarifying that the relevant constitutional provisions apply only within the current term of Parliament.

The court specified that Articles 97(1)(g) and (h) of the Constitution do not extend to future parliamentary terms, such as when an MP runs for election under a different political party in subsequent elections.

The Supreme Court emphasised that an MP’s seat must be vacated if they switch parties while holding office within the same parliamentary term.

In other words, changing political affiliation during a parliamentary term while remaining in Parliament will lead to the loss of their seat.

The judgment also addressed the situation for independent MPs, making it clear that if an independent MP joins a political party while serving their current term, they must vacate their seat.

The ruling elaborated that the constitutional provisions should be viewed in the context of the existing term of Parliament.

They do not intend to regulate future candidacies or the electoral ambitions of MPs who may wish to contest under different political parties in the future.

“It follows from the above, therefore, that the only plausible conclusion which must necessarily flow from a holistic and contextual reading of Article 97(1)(g) and (h) is that an MP’s seat shall be vacated upon departure from the cohort of his elected party in Parliament to join another party in Parliament while seeking to remain in that Parliament as a member of the new party,” the court stated.

Additionally, the ruling clarified that the constitutional articles in question are not concerned with future elections.

They strictly pertain to the current period in which an MP holds their seat and make no provisions for future electoral scenarios.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision firmly defines the circumstances under which an MP must vacate their seat, focusing exclusively on changes in political affiliation within the same parliamentary term.

Dear Mr. Speaker, a while ago, I published an open letter to the Chief Justice of our Republic, Her Ladyship Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo. The sentiments contained in that letter came from puritanical intentions and aligned, I believe, with pervasive public perceptions of our apex court.

I argued that the waning trust in the judiciary is a major risk to our democracy. We may have enjoyed over 30 years of our 4^th Republic, but we should not get too comfortable. Reports of democratic recession globally and a disenchanted African youth must guide our governments and leaders. The disillusionment of many in the failure of our democracy to deliver the promises of our 1992 Constitution paints more a fragile democracy. Please let’s not take our progress for granted.

Mr. Speaker, following the dismissal of your motion to have the Supreme Court vacate its orders in the Afenyo Markin vs. The Speaker case, there are many expecting that you will ignore the apex court and proceed in an assertive fashion. Well, you may do that, perhaps with limited consequences for your person as the rest of us would have faced if we disobeyed the Supreme Court. But that may be High Crime. One that must be punished irrespective of whose ox is gored.

While the hawks would applaud the no-nonsense ‘kinkong’ Bagbin persona on the sidelines, it would ring uncertainty, or even doom, for our democratic governance. Our Constitution has granted hegemony of adjudicative powers in our courts, and installed the Supreme Court as the final arbiter in that enterprise.

Your disrespect of the court’s decision will set a dangerous precedent and disturb the harmony in our governance institutions. Can you imagine the anarchy of having the various arms of government opt to disregard the orders of the Supreme Court? May be the citizenry and security agencies will follow suit and there goes our statehood.

The constitution envisages the occurrence of conflicts in the everyday dealings of the citizenry as well as the dealings of our governance structures. For the sustenance of governance and the progress of the State, conflicts cannot be allowed to continue in
perpetuity and for which reason, the Supreme Court in Article 129 is charged with bringing finality to conflicts, including conflicts with itself. ‘We-the-people’ through the constitution, empowered it with counter majoritarian powers. We did this in full knowledge that it may hurt intertemporally but sure provides structural stability for the advancement of the State.

Respectfully, Mr. Speaker. Like all of us, you are entitled to disagree with rulings and judgments of the court when they are perverse, or even threaten the ideals of our Constitution. The mere existence of a flaw in the court’s decision does not necessarily mean it should be disobeyed, any more than the mere existence of a bad character trait in a child means he should be abandoned. It is true that the indeterminacy and manipulability of law means a court’s decision can sometimes be atrocious, offensive and a desecration of justice. But disobedience resets our governance systems to a primordial anarchic state.

Judges themselves accept that they can be wrong. It was a former Nigerian Chief Justice, Chukwudifu Oputa, who said that the law is what the Supreme Court says it is even when it is wrong. In other words, a court’s decision may be subject to decisive objections, like this current one, but until reversed, or steps are taken to change it, must be obeyed, nonetheless.

Mr. Speaker, while the hawkish voices may be loud, cacophonous and tempting, I strongly urge you not to fall into the trap of counter-productive inter-organ collision which now threatens the efficiency of our state.

I urge you to put country first and save our democracy from the excessive partisan polarization we face today.

If you can do this, your place in our history as an extraordinary statesman is assured.

From the caves of Klefe-Demete, my humble village, I remain.

Senyo K. Hosi PS: Dear Speaker Alban, it’s not time to be Man, it’s time to be Statesman, posterity will be kind to your time.

The Supreme Court has described as disingenuous and misleading the suggestion that its jurisdiction cannot be invoked for constitutional interpretation because the High Court holds jurisdiction over election disputes and the vacation of parliamentary seats.

According to the Supreme Court, Article 99 grants the High Court the authority to adjudicate matters concerning the validity of elections or the vacation of seats by Members of Parliament (MP) and the Speaker. However, this provision does not strip the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the Constitution.

Delivering its ruling on the vacant seats on Wednesday, October 30, Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo addressed objections to the procedure used to serve the Speaker of Parliament, citing administrative circulars from the Chief Justice issued in 2021 and 2024.

• Read also: Seat vacancy controversy: Supreme Court rejects Speaker’s application to set aside its earlier ruling

“It is therefore disingenuous and wrong, including being an act of disinformation for the argument to be presented that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court could never be evoked to determine a constitutional interpretation because of the High Court’s jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes on elections and vacation of seats of Members of Parliament under Article 99.

“Our clear view is that Article 99 gives the jurisdiction to hear cases involving questions on the validity of election or vacation of seats of a Member of Parliament and the Speaker. It does not in any way take away the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to interpret and enforce any provision of the Constitution, including Article 99 itself,” the Chief Justice said.

She continued; “We are satisfied that administrative procedures cannot override the potency of legality, and every procedure used by the Supreme Court to serve the processes of the speaker of parliament were actually in conformity with law and the seculars issued by the Chief Justices in 2021 and 2024.”

She noted that the Speaker had urged the Supreme Court to violate the rules of natural justice and rules exercising discretion in its October 18, 2024 ex parte ruling, which ordered a stay of execution on the Speaker’s decision to declare four parliamentary seats vacant.

The Chief Justice explained that the law requires a stay of execution to be granted only under exceptional circumstances where failure to do so would cause irreparable harm.

• Read also: Vacant seats case: Supreme Court adjourns case to November 11

She clarified that the ruling arose from concerns about the Speaker’s declaration of the four seats as vacant, which would prevent the affected MPs from continuing to represent their constituencies.

“The four constituencies in the Western region, Ashanti Region, Central Region and Eastern regions of Parliament are made up of hundreds of thousands of Ghanaians who had cued to elect these members of parliament to represent their interests in Parliament as their voices.

“By declaring that their duly elected representatives in Parliament had vacated their seats for acts that were interpreted within the light of Article 97 (1)(g), by the speaker, the speaker was actually enforcing this interpretation of Article 97 (1)(g) against those hundreds of thousands of Ghanaians and not just the four people that sit in Parliament.

“He was also doing so at a time that from the official records of Parliament presented to the Supreme Court, the speaker knew that a contrary interpretation was being placed on the same constitutional provision and that the Supreme Court jurisdiction had been invoked to provide the correct interpretation,” she said.

Chief Justice Torkornoo further stated that no by-elections could lawfully be held to replace the affected MPs between October 17, 2024, and January 7, 2025, a factor that weighed heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision to grant the stay of execution.

“This exceptional circumstance arising from the outcome of the ruling weighed on the mind of the supreme court to grant an order directing a stay of execution of the ruling of the Speaker on 17th October 2024.”

Welcome to JoyNews’ live coverage of the highly anticipated court case between Alexander Afenyo-Markin, the Majority Leader, and the Speaker of Parliament, as they clash over the vacant seat controversy.

This contentious issue has been making headlines, and today’s proceedings promise to be thrilling.

The case, filed on October 18, 2024, revolves around the disputed seats and the Speaker’s ruling on the matter.

Mr Afenyo-Markin seeks to challenge the Speaker’s decision, which could potentially alter the balance of power in Parliament.

Watch the the livestream of the court proceedings below:

The leader of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) caucus in Parliament, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, has assured the public that his side will not engage in any form of physical altercations during the upcoming parliamentary session on Tuesday, October 22.

He made these remarks during an interview with Accra-based Peace FM on Monday, October 21, in response to threats from the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC) MPs to occupy the majority side of Parliament.

Mr Afenyo-Markin emphasised that the NPP MPs are not inclined towards violence and would rather stage a walkout if the NDC MPs attempt to engage them in fisticuffs or forcibly take over their seats.

• Read also: “We will jealously protect our new majority status” – Ato Forson

He reiterated the NPP caucus’s commitment to maintaining peace and decorum in the House.

This development follows threats by NDC MPs to assert themselves as the new majority caucus in Parliament following Speaker Alban Bagbin’s declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacant.

However, the Supreme Court has stayed the Speaker’s ruling, allowing the four affected MPs to continue representing their constituencies.

• Read also: We’ll scrap e-levy, betting tax with our new ‘Majority’ status – Ato Forson

Despite the NDC MPs, led by Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson, claiming they are the new majority caucus based on the Speaker’s ruling, Mr Afenyo-Markin stated that the NPP will continue to respect the legal processes and will not be drawn into any confrontation.

“I can assure of that we won’t there won’t be any showdown or whatever tomorrow. We are lawabidding people and we won’t the laxity for violence. Should they take over our seats, or do anything that is untoward, I will lead a walkout,” he said.

Below are the orders of the Supreme Court directing Parliament and the Attorney General to recognise and allow the four MPs whose seats were on Thursday declared vacant by the Speaker of Parliament to duly represent their constituents and conduct the full scope of the duties of their offices as MP pending the determination of the filed by the Majority Leader and MP for Effutu, Alexander Afenyo-Markin.

The affected MPs are:

• Madam Cynthia Mamle Morrison, NPP MP for Agona West
• Mr Kwadjo Asante, NPP MP for Suhum
• Mr Peter Yaw Kwakye-Ackah, NDC MP for Amenfi Central, and  
• Mr Andrew Amoako Asiamah, Independent MP for Fomena and Second Deputy Speaker

The five-man panel of the apex court comprised Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, presiding, Mariam Owusu, S.K.A Asiedu, E.Y Gaewu, and Y. Darko Asare.

South Dayi MP, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor has stated that the National Democratic Congress (NDC) caucus in Parliament is deeply troubled by the Supreme Court’s (SC) ruling to stay Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin’s decision of declaring four parliamentary seats vacant.

According to him, the Supreme Court erred in its decision to issue a stay of execution on Speaker Bagbin’s declaration.

His comments follow the Supreme Court’s decision on Friday, October 18, which issued a stay of execution on Speaker Bagbin’s declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacant.

The Supreme Court’s ruling directed Parliament to recognise the four MPs in question, allowing them to continue representing their constituencies and perform their official duties.

• Read also: Supreme Court stays Speaker’s ruling ousting 4 MPs from Parliament

This directive will remain in effect, not for the 10 days initially requested by the applicants, but until the court delivers its final ruling on the matter.

But speaking on JoyFM’s Top Story on Friday, October 18, Mr Dafeamekpor argued that the legal principles guiding the practice of law in Ghana stipulate that an ex parte order should not remain in effect for more than nine days.

He expressed his disagreement with the Supreme Court’s decision to suspend the Speaker’s declaration until the case is finally resolved.

“What is the Supreme Court staying, what order? There is nothing to stay. This is a non-executable order. The Speaker gave information to Parliament,” he said.

He stated that Speaker Bagbin did not issue a ruling but merely shared information with Parliament based on the petition filed by Tamale South MP, Haruna Iddrisu.

• Read also: Speaker Bagbin declares 4 Parliamentary seats vacant

“This is the Speaker’s information to the House so how do you stay such an information,” he asked.

“The person who spoke to the Hosue said this is the information I have for you, so if you are labeling it as a ruling, I don’t know how that can be so labeled. He says this is the information I have that these four Members of Parliament have by their conduct done a,b,c. 

“The Speaker has given information to the House then somebody goes to the court and says that this amounts to a certain order and therefore, that order should be stayed. How is this to be stayed, with all due respect to the court” he questioned.

Mr Dafeamekpor further asserted that the court had made a legal error, stressing that the Speaker’s communication was not subject to execution.

The ruling made today by Speaker Alban Bagbin, in response to allegations raised by Minority Leader Dr Cassiel Ato Baah Forson, has ignited debate over potential breaches of Article 97(1)(g) and (h) of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution.

The Minority Leader urged the Speaker to declare vacant, the seats of four MPs, who filed to contest the 2024 elections as independents or under different parties. Speaker Bagbin’s decision to declare these seats vacant without seeking judicial intervention, relying instead on his interpretation of the constitutional provisions has drawn scrutiny for potentially exceeding the intended role of the Speaker and for disrupting parliamentary stability.

This critique explores the inconsistencies in the Speaker’s ruling, focusing on issues of constitutional interpretation, the body or institution with the power to declare the seat of an MP Vacant and the implications of the position taken by the Speaker in respect of the case that is pending before the Supreme Court.

1. The Role of the Speaker in Determining Vacancies

The Speaker of Parliament is, by design, the head of Parliament and the one who presides over all parliamentary proceedings. But the peculiar facts of this case raise the question of whether the Speaker, being the head of Parliament is the appropriate person to determine the issue of when the seat of a member of Parliament becomes vacant within the purview of Article 97(1)(g) of the Constitution.

The Speaker emphasizes his duty to inform the House about vacancies as prescribed under the Standing Orders of Parliament and Article 97. However, determining whether a vacancy exists is not purely procedural but involves fact-finding that may exceed the Speaker’s remit. Indeed, the constitution is clear that the jurisdiction to determine whether the seat of a member of Parliament is vacant is vested exclusively with the High Court within the purview of Article 99 of the Constitution. Therefore, the decision of the Speaker flies in the face of the said constitutional provision.

2. Constitutional Interpretation and Judicial Authority

Article 97 outlines when an MP must vacate a seat but determining whether an MP has defected or changed party allegiance may require judicial interpretation. Accordingly, the issues that arise raise serious issues of constitutional interpretation which is not within the purview of Parliament. Under the constitutional architecture, it is only the Supreme Court, and not the Speaker, with the power of interpreting the Constitution. Accordingly, the decision of the Speaker amounts to a naked usurpation of the powers conferred on the Supreme Court. This is particularly so considering that there is currently a suit at the Supreme Court seeking an interpretation of the provisions in issue.

3. Application of Precedent and Its Relevance

Speaker Bagbin followed the precedent set by Rt. Hon. Prof. Aaron Mike Oquaye, who declared the seat of the Fomena MP vacant in 2020 under similar circumstances. However, the question arises whether such a precedent, which was not established by a court of competent jurisdiction, should have guided his decision. In any event,

4. Precedential Value vs. Judicial Determination

While the precedent set by a former Speaker may provide guidance, it does not have the same authority as a judicial determination. Since the decision by Prof. Oquaye was not made by a court, it lacks the binding force of law that a judicial ruling would carry. Given that the matter concerns constitutional interpretation, it would have been more prudent for Speaker Bagbin to seek a court’s ruling rather than relying on a non-judicial precedent. This would ensure consistency with Article 99, which places such determinations under the purview of the High Court.

The Importance of Judicial Oversight: Following a non-judicial precedent without seeking further judicial clarification risks perpetuating interpretations that may not fully align with constitutional principles. A referral to the judiciary would have allowed for a more authoritative and legally sound interpretation of Article 97(1)(g) and (h), ensuring that the rights of MPs and the will of the electorate are properly balanced.

5. Application of Article 97(1)(g) and (h)

The Speaker asserts that Article 97(1)(g) and (h) should be applied immediately to MPs contesting as independents or under different parties to prevent cross-carpeting.

However, this interpretation ignores the potential for voters to decide on these shifts in allegiance during upcoming elections, which could maintain stability during a parliamentary term. Allowing such shifts to be addressed at the polls respects the electorate’s role in determining their representatives.

The immediate application disrupts the parliamentary composition mid-term, altering its dynamics without voter input, despite the Speaker’s intention to uphold their mandate.

6. Differentiation Between Automatic and Fact-Based Vacancies

The Speaker distinguishes between automatic vacancies (like resignations) and those requiring factual determination, classifying MPs filing as independents or with different parties as the former.

This classification is inconsistent since determining whether an MP has “left the party” involves analyzing intent and actions, which is not as straightforward as automatic resignations.

Relying on the notice of poll to conclude that MPs have vacated their seats overlooks the need for a more thorough factual determination of whether running as an independent equates to formal resignation. This would typically require judicial analysis under Article 99.

7. Inconsistent Application of the Principle of Representation

The Speaker justifies his ruling by emphasizing party loyalty and protecting the electorate’s mandate. However, this position is inconsistent with the decision’s outcome, which changes parliamentary composition without voter involvement.

 If the goal is to respect the electorate’s will, it would be more democratic to allow voters to decide on their MPs’ new affiliations in elections rather than declaring vacancies mid-term.

This selective approach prioritizes party loyalty over the broader democratic principle of allowing the electorate to reassess their representatives at the polls.

Conclusion The Speaker’s ruling reveals several inconsistencies, particularly in its interpretation of constitutional provisions and the role of judicial interpretation. While intended to maintain party loyalty, the decision risks exceeding the Speaker’s authority disregards the constitutional mandate of Article 99, and disrupts parliamentary stability. Given the complexities of constitutional interpretation and the rights of MPs, a more balanced approach involving judicial input would have been more consistent with democratic principles and Ghana’s constitutional framework

Akim Abuakwa South MP Samuel Atta Akyea has questioned the legal and constitutional interpretations regarding the actions of former Speaker of Parliament, Prof. Mike Oquaye, on MPs who cross-carpet during their term in office.

The private legal practitioner in an interview on Joy News’ PM Express on Tuesday argued that Prof Oquaye’s decision was not binding on the current Parliament and expressed his belief that the former Speaker had erred in his interpretation of the law.

Atta Akyea’s concerns stemmed from the current debate on whether MPs who declare intentions to run as independents in future elections should be forced to vacate their seats immediately.

He insisted that there is no concrete legal basis for this.

“We do not have concrete evidence that these individuals have filed the requisite papers to say that in the future they want to go on the side of NPP or become independent. That’s if they are more serious. You do not have just a declaration of intention,” he stated.

He further explained that the Constitution differentiates between actual cross-carpet actions and mere declarations of intent.

“What Speaker Mike Oquaye did in the past, I believe, was in error, and we are not bound by his decision,” Atta Akyea stated.

He pointed out that the constitution only mandates consequences for MPs who cross over to another party while Parliament is in session, not those who merely declare future intentions.

“There is no law that says what the previous Speaker did, if in error, should have relevance for the now moment. And I believe that Speaker Oquaye was wrong because the Constitution is clear.

“Today you cross-carpet, when Parliament is in session—not when it’s dissolved—and you join another party. That’s the distinction I want to make,” he explained.

The legal practitioner also stressed that the essence of Article 97 of the Constitution applies only to actual cross-carpeting and not future projections.

“If you declare your future intentions, how can you say I should vacate my seat? Today, I’m a member of Parliament for Akim Abuakwa South, but in the next election, I intend to join the NDC. How can you say I should vacate my seat now for that reason?”

In his view, political realities and MPs’ autonomy should not be undermined by overzealous interpretations of constitutional provisions.

Atta Akyea advocated for a more pragmatic approach to such issues, maintaining that an MP’s current status should not be affected by their future aspirations.

“We should not make the MP robotic, such that he can’t tell you his intentions for the future,” he concluded.

The Parliament of Ghana has committed to funding the training and upgrading of 275 Physical Education (P.E) teachers from each constituency to become CAF-licensed coaches.

This initiative, part of the activities celebrating 30 years of Parliamentary Democracy in Ghana, will involve the selected teachers undergoing training conducted by CAF-certified instructors.

The programme aims to equip these teachers with the necessary technical and tactical skills, enabling them to return to their constituencies and share their newfound knowledge with colleagues.

This, in turn, will provide grassroots football players with the proper guidance needed to excel in the sport.

As part of the anniversary celebrations, Parliament organised a special football match between Asante Kotoko and Accra Hearts of Oak, held at the Accra Sports Stadium on 17th July.

Asante Kotoko emerged victorious, defeating Hearts of Oak 2-1 to claim the trophy.

The win has earned Kotoko the opportunity to play against DC United in the United States next month as part of their prize package.

Alban Bagbin, the Speaker of Parliament, underscored the vital role football plays in national development.

Speaking during a review meeting following the historic match, Speaker Bagbin highlighted football’s unique position as the nation’s passion, emphasising the importance of leveraging this to promote democratic values in Ghana.

“The United Kingdom has utilised football to advance various aspects of their national development. We, too, must harness the power of football to drive our nation forward, promote democracy, and ultimately foster economic growth,” he stated.

He further added, “Ghana possesses all the necessary ingredients to succeed in football, and we must seize this opportunity to use the sport to educate people on the importance of embracing democracy.”

The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, has commissioned the state-of-the-art McCoy Sports Stadium in Nadowli.

This stadium, realised through the Speaker’s personal initiative with the support of Ghana Gas and Wembley Sports Construction, stands as a testament to his dedication to community development and the advancement of sports.

In his address to the gathered crowd, Alban Bagbin stated, “This magnificent facility is not just a gift to Nadowli but to the entire nation. It symbolises what can be achieved through collective effort and a shared commitment to a common cause.”

The stadium, equipped with world-class amenities and a substantial seating capacity, is poised to transform sports development in the region. It will serve as a hub for local athletes, host competitive matches, and provide a venue for community events.

The commissioning ceremony was highlighted by an exhilarating football match between the “Bagbin 11” team and a squad of former Black Stars players, led by the legendary Stephen Appiah.

In a thrilling encounter, the “Bagbin 11” team emerged victorious, defeating the former Black Stars players with an impressive scoreline of 7-2.

The match attracted a large crowd, who were treated to a display of skill, sportsmanship, and nostalgia.

The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Bagbin, has reaffirmed his commitment to institutionalising the Democracy Cup as an annual event following the successful hosting of its first edition.

The inaugural Democracy Cup match, saw Accra Hearts of Oak and Asante Kotoko face off in a highly anticipated encounter.

Kotoko emerged victorious with a 2-1 win, lifting the maiden trophy at the Accra Sports Stadium in July.

In a meeting with officials from Primeval Media, the organisers of the match, and representatives from Asante Kotoko, Mr Bagbin reflected on the historic event, which drew the attention of stakeholders from across Ghana’s football community and democratic institutions.

Mr. Bagbin highlighted the unique role of football in Ghana, describing it as the nation’s passion and emphasising the need to leverage this love for the sport to promote the principles of democracy.

“Football is the passion of the nation; it is unique. That is why we must ensure that this competition becomes an annual event to help promote Ghana’s growing democracy,” Bagbin stated.

The Speaker noted the English Premier League as the biggest brand in the world due to deliberate efforts by the UK.

“Look at what the United Kingdom has used football for. Their league is the biggest and the best brand in the world.

“The UK has leveraged football to promote every aspect of their development. We must also use football to drive the nation forward, promote democracy, and ultimately foster economic development.”

He further emphasised that Ghana has all the necessary resources to excel in football and should harness these opportunities to advance the nation’s democratic education.

“We hope to take it to other parts of the country in the future and use the occasion to project our cherished democracy,” he added.

Mr Lawrence Opare-Otoo, Chief Executive Officer of Primeval Media, expressed his gratitude to the leadership of Parliament for the opportunity to organise the event.

He acknowledged the challenges faced but noted that the event was ultimately a success.

Mr. Opare-Otoo also stressed the importance of embracing and preserving the Democracy Cup, urging all Ghanaians to support the initiative.

The Democracy Cup match was part of the activities marking 30 years of Ghana’s parliamentary democracy.

Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin has formed a seven-member committee to investigate the recent spillage of the Akosombo Dam.

Nearly a year ago, more than 30 constituencies were devastated and submerged after the flood gates of the Akosombo Dam were opened.

This comes after the North Tongu MP, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, called on parliament to expedite its probe into the spillage of the Akosombo and Kpong dams.

However, due to delays from the Majority leadership in submitting committee member names, the Speaker took the initiative to form the committee himself.

• Read also: Ablakwa urges Parliament to hasten probe into Akosombo Dam spillage

According to the speaker, the committee will include members of both sides of the house mandate is to thoroughly investigate several critical aspects of the spillage.

The committee will be chaired by MP for Ahafo Ano North, Sulemana Adamu Sanid, with Dr Emmanuel Marfo and Francisca Oteng Mensah also serving as members. Other members include Emmanuel Kwesi Bedzrah, Dr Kwabena Donkor, and a technical expert.

“Establish the circumstances leading to the spillage of excess water from the Akosombo dam. Evaluate the preparedness and response of the Volta River Authority and relevant bodies. Assess the impact of the spillage on the affected communities and the adequacy of the released efforts. Review the protocols and methodologies considered best practice globally to regulate the dam spillage and make recommendation for the consideration of the house on how such disaster can be averted and minimized in the future.

• Read also: VRA prepares for potential Akosombo Dam spill with enhanced community engagements

The Speaker added that the committee must also examine global best practices for dam management and make recommendations to prevent and mitigate future disasters.

“We are still confronted in the aftermath of the spillage of the Akosombo dam by the VRA which has plunged thousands of Ghanaians into destitution with loss of property running into billions of Ghana cedis and the disruption of livelihoods has been devastating.

According to the Speaker, the Volta River Authority (VRA) issued a notice on July 5, signed by the Deputy Chief Executive in charge of services, Engineer Ken Arthur, indicating their plan to consult with relevant stakeholders about a potential future spillage of excess water from the Akosombo Dam

“Concerns have been raised by Ghanaians whose interest we represent in this house about the VRA handling of the situation, particularly regarding the timing and communication of the spillage imperative that we do not allow this matter to be swept under the carpets,” he said.

The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin has apologized to the Ghanaian public over the botched regulation that sought to allow MPs, Ministers and Judges drive without speed limit and install sirens.

This was after the L.I was withdrawn following intense public backlash.

In a formal statement to the House on Monday, July 29, Alban Bagbin called for a reflection on the processes necessary for subsidiary legislation to become law.

• Read also: LI granting siren use rights to MPs, Ministers withdrawn

“We recognize the public’s perception of insensitivity and I am here to offer an apology and assure the Ghanaian people that this Parliament remains acutely aware of and responsive to their needs,” he added.

The apology by the Speaker comes weeks after the Road Traffic (Amendment) Regulations, 2024, Legislative Instrument (L.I.), which seeks to allow specific officials of the state to use sirens or bells as warning appliances on specific classes of vehicles, was withdrawn.

The Minister of Local Government and Rural Development, Martin Adjei-Mensah Korsah, withdrew the instrument on the floor of Parliament on July 16 on behalf of the Minister of Transport, Kwaku Ofori Asiamah, citing public and stakeholder concerns.

He added that “the withdrawal became necessary based on extensive engagement with leadership.”

He further announced, “Mr Speaker, I would like to move that the Road Traffic Amendment 2024, which was laid on Friday, June 14, be withdrawn… it is so withdrawn.”

Read also: Public backlash against LI granting siren use rights to MPs and Ministers

The Ministry of Transport had previously laid the LI before Parliament to amend portions of the Road Traffic Regulations 2012.

However, the LI faced opposition from the public and the Minority in Parliament, who issued a press statement urging the Transport Minister to withdraw the LI before it matured in 21 days.

The Minority also pledged to vote against the LI if it reached the chamber.

The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, has denied allegations by former Special Prosecutor, Martin Amidu that he had a meeting with President Akufo-Addo in Dubai in 2021, prior to the rejection of the 2022 budget.

According to a statement released by the Speaker’s Communication Unit, the claims are baseless, unfounded, and part of a deliberate attempt to tarnish the Speaker’s reputation.

The statement dated May 28, 2024, and signed by Peter Bamfo, said Mr Bagbin has a long record of distinguished and honest public service and will continue to put the interest of Ghana first.

“The Rt Hon Speaker will not be deterred from carrying out his public service duties, guiding and providing leadership for Parliament even in the face of insinuations, unprovoked attacks and unfounded allegations like Mr Amidu’s,” the statement added.

The clarification follows some allegation made by Mr Amidu in a write up calling out the National Democratic Congress (NDC), its 2024 flagbearer and national chairman.

“Asiedu Nketiah and John Mahama, did your self-confessed corrupt Speaker of Parliament not meet the President in Dubai in 2021 before he returned to Parliament to turn a closed eye to his own determination that rejected the 2022 Budget Statement ad Economic Policy of Government?

“Did you not see, observe, and read the reaction and excitement amongst your Minority Leader and his team after meeting the President on 20th May, 2024,”he wrote.

But the Speaker insists that he does not have a vote in Parliament and does not take part in decisions of the House as stated in the 1992 Constitution and affirmed by the Supreme Court of Ghana.

The Speaker is, therefore, asking Martin Amidu to withdraw his statements and apologise unreservedly within seven days, or he will take the necessary action against him.

Find the full statement below:

The Member of Parliament for South Dayi, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, says the Speaker of Parliament has not contravened the Standing Orders by choosing not to respond to a plea of the Majority.

His defence of The Speaker follows the Majority in Parliament’s urgent plea on May 3 for the house to reconvene to address crucial government matters.

In a letter directed to the Speaker by the Majority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, reference was made to Article 112(3) and Order 53 of the Standing Orders of Parliament, which authorises 15% of the House members to request Parliament’s recall.

The main agenda items for the requested session include the adoption of the 34th Report of the Appointments Committee and the consideration of a motion on additional financing.

Specifically, the caucus seeks Parliament’s attention on a motion for an “Additional Financing Agreement between GoG and the IDA for an amount of US$150 million to finance the ongoing Greater Accra Resilient and Integrated Development (GARID) Project,” as well as a “Request for Tax Exemption for selected beneficiaries under the 1D1F Programme.”

Speaking on Joy FM at midday, Mr. Dafeamekpor said that “The Speaker has not broken the Constitution or the Standing Orders. So let us be careful of that; the Majority knows what he has to do under the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders are very clear; if that requirement is met, then The Speaker would have to review the Standing Orders, issue a summons, and recall it within seven days. In the absence of The Speaker, we have the First Deputy Speaker, who would act; in the absence of the First Deputy Speaker, the Second Deputy Speaker would act. Is the majority leader saying that in the absence of The Speaker, nobody can act?”

He said the First Deputy Speaker is affiliated with the NPP, whereas the Second Deputy Speaker collaborates closely with the NPP in parliamentary affairs; hence, there is no cause for concern.

“The First Deputy is a member of parliament on the ticket of the NPP; the Second Deputy Speaker is the independent member of parliament who is caucusing in doing business with the Majority in parliament; hence, what is the NPP’s beef?”

The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin has lauded African parliamentarians for playing a significant role in providing legislative support for peacekeeping missions to address conflicts and stabilise fragile states in Africa.

He said the parliamentarians provided essential legislative support, oversight, and funding for those missions and advocated international support and cooperation to enhance peacekeeping efforts.

Speaker Bagbin said this at the 148th Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), from March 23-27, in Geneva, Switzerland.

The IPU provides a forum for parliamentarians from around the world to come together, exchange ideas, and collaborate on shared challenges, as well as promote democratic values, address global challenges, and advance peace and understanding on a global scale.

The Union also contributes to building a more inclusive, peaceful, and prosperous world for all.

Speaking on the topic: “Parliamentary Diplomacy: Building Bridges for Peace and Understanding”, Speaker Bagbin said Parliamentary diplomacy gained prominence after the establishment of the League of Nations, which aimed to promote international cooperation and prevent future conflicts.

“By affirming our commitment to diplomatic efforts, prioritising peace and cooperation in parliamentary agendas, and calling for collective action towards building bridges and fostering global harmony, we in Africa can contribute to overcoming the challenges confronting parliamentary diplomacy and advancing the interests of our countries and the continent as a whole.”

Throughout their discussions, it had become abundantly clear that parliamentary diplomacy played a crucial and indispensable role in addressing complex global challenges and fostering peace and understanding, he said.

From the historical roots of parliamentary engagement in diplomacy to the contemporary challenges facing parliamentarians, it was evident that the involvement of legislative bodies was not just essential, but necessary for effective governance on the international stage.

“We cannot overlook the key challenges, such as limited resources and political instability, that must be addressed to enhance the efficacy of parliamentary diplomacy,” Speaker Babgin said.

“One central theme has emerged from our discussion: parliamentary diplomacy is fundamental to building a better world, and there can be no doubt about that.”

He said by providing platforms for dialogue, collaboration, and conflict resolution, parliamentarians could bridge divides, promote mutual understanding, and advocate peaceful resolutions to conflicts.

The Speaker said the democratic legitimacy and grassroots representation inherent in parliamentary diplomacy enriched diplomatic discourse and contributed to more inclusive and effective global governance.

“As we look toward the future, we must express our deepest gratitude to parliamentarians around the world for their tireless efforts in promoting peace and understanding.”

Speaker Bagbin noted that despite the challenges they faced, there was hope for a future where nations came together in cooperation and solidarity.

“We must reaffirm our commitment to diplomatic engagement, prioritise peacebuilding efforts, and foster collaboration among nations, so we can build a more peaceful and prosperous world for generations to come,” he said.

“For democracy, for everyone, leaving no one behind, we move together to build bridges for peace and understanding. Together we can.”

A lawyer, Bobby Banson says the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, had no legal grounds to suspend the vetting and approval of ministers and deputies appointed by President Akufo-Addo.

According to him, as of March 20, 2024, when the Speaker stated that he had before him a motion or an interlocutory injunction, there was no application pending.

Speaking on Newsfile on Saturday, March 23, Mr Banson argued that the Speaker had no “legal basis” to suspend the consideration of the appointees on March 20 if the decision was based on an interlocutory process before the Supreme Court.

“If he had made that statement on March 21 and said that because there was an injunction application, he would suspend and let the Supreme Court decide, I would have agreed with him. But on the 20th, there was no such application.”

His remark comes after the Speaker of Parliament suspended the vetting and approval of the new ministerial nominees appointed by President Akufo-Addo on Wednesday, March 20.

Mr Bagbin stated that the decision follows an interlocutory injunction filed at the Supreme Court by Member of Parliament for South Dayi, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor.

In his final address to the House before adjourning sitting, Alban Bagbin said the lawsuit makes it impossible for Parliament to vet and process the new ministers.

“Hon Members, I also bring to your attention, the receipt of a process from the Courts titled Rockson-Nelson Etse K. Dafeamekpor vrs. The Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney-General ( Suit no. J1/12/2024) which process was served on the 19th of March 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 His Excellency the President until the provisions of the constitution are satisfied.

“Hon. Members in the 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 explained.

The lawyer stressed that the Speaker of Parliament should have consulted with the leadership of both the Majority and Minority before making his pronouncement on the issue.

He remarked, “Through those consultations, his attention would have been drawn to the lawsuit.”

Meanwhile, the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Godfred Yeboah Dame says Parliament is not restrained from proceeding with the vetting and approval process of the ministerial nominees.

According to him, the action filed by Member of Parliament for South Dayi, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor consists of a bare writ of summons.

He explained that no statement of the case in support of the writ was filed by the South Dayi MP as mandated by the Supreme Court Rules 1996 (C.I 16).

“It is thus correct to say, respectfully, that the suit is not properly constituted. In accordance with Rule 46(3) of C. I. 16, such an action will be struck out where a statement of case in support of the plaintiff’s writ is not filed within fourteen (14) days. 

“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 which 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,” the Attorney-General said.

The President, Nana Addo Danquah Akufo-Addo’s refusal to assent to the anti-LGBTQ+ bill passed by Parliament has been deemed irresponsible.

His attitude has sparked widespread criticism, as he has yet to explain why he is not assenting to the bill.

This has caused the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Bagbin, to also halt the approval of ministerial nominees presented by the Presidency.

The majority of critics and political enthusiasts have condemned President Akufo-Addo’s silence and called on him to sign the bill.

The latest to add his voice is Kwame Jantuah, a private legal practitioner and senior member of the Convention People’s Party (CPP).

Speaking on Joy Prime’s Prime Morning Show, the lawyer asked the President to perform his duties properly as stated in the Constitution and stop deceiving Ghanaians.

According to him, “The President is mandated by the Constitution to do his work. Nobody can stop the President from doing his work. The Constitution is the highest law in the land. Are we saying that if the President goes on to do his work and there’s an interlocutory injunction in court, the Supreme Court can hold the President for contempt of court? When he’s doing his mandatory work according to 106.”

“So, do what you have to do. Tell us reasons why you won’t sign because this is a bill and not an act. So far as we’re concerned, it hasn’t been put into law, and we don’t have an act where LGBTQ+ is, so you, the President, do your work and stop playing chaskele with the Constitution,” he added.

A few days after the passage of the bill, the Office of the President officially requested Parliament to refrain from transmitting the Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values, which is the Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill, to President Akufo-Addo for his assent.

In a letter addressed to Parliament on Monday, March 18, and signed by the Secretary to the President, Nana Asante Bediatuo, the Presidency explained that the request was made in light of two pending applications for an order of interlocutory injunction currently before the Supreme Court.

According to Article 8: “Where the President refuses to assent to a bill, he shall, within fourteen days after the refusal – (a) state in a memorandum to the Speaker any specific provisions of the bill which in his opinion, should be reconsidered by Parliament, including his recommendations for amendments if any; or (b) inform the Speaker that he has referred the bill to the Council of State for consideration and comment under Article 90 of this Constitution.

This, Mr. Jantuah said, allows the president to explain the reasons behind his decision not to agree to the bill.

“Has he done that? He’s pushed it on to the courts, but then the constitution might have a lacuna in terms of injunctions on the president, but I don’t think anybody can injunct the President.”

Meanwhile, the lawyer supports Alban Bagbin’s decision not to approve the list of nominated ministers, saying it is the speaker’s jurisdiction.

From the next meeting of Parliament, the Speaker of Parliament vows to lock the doors of Parliament at 10 am as he laments the late start of sittings due to lateness from MPs.

Alban Bagbin addressing Parliamentarians said it is not right that he has to come and wait for them to start the business of the house.

The former Nadowli-Kaleo MP was emphatic that, if MPs do not want him to enforce this new decision, then they must agree to start sittings at 2 or 4 pm.

“There is nowhere in the world where the Speaker will have to go and sit and wait for MPs to come in, it does not happen.

“So please from the first meeting of the fourth session of the Eight Parliament of the Fourth Republic, at 10 am, the doors will be locked,” he stated.

He continued, “It will take some time before it will be opened. If we are not able to comply with it, let’s all agree sittings will start in the afternoon.

The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin says the House will pass the anti-LGBTQ bill before adjourning for the Christmas break.

According to him, both the Majority and the Minority in Parliament are not opposed to the bill.

Speaking on the floor of Parliament on Thursday, December 7, the Speaker stated that democracy is in progress with the nation now placing a strong emphasis on openness, transparency and accountability.

He emphasised that when it comes to the consideration of bills, not many members in Parliament show interest in the deliberative process and urged the MPs not to insist on always having a quorum before the House proceeds with the consideration of a bill.

“We are looking at those that are technically inclined to do those things and make sure that the right thing is captured in the bill.

“Whatever the situation, I know that nobody in this House is opposed to the bill,” he said, and added that “this bill will see the light of day before we rise,” Mr Bagbin.

His remark followed a near chaos on the floor of Parliament on Wednesday, December 6 when the first Deputy Speaker, Joseph Osei-Owusu adjourned the proceedings without taking the bill which was slated for the day’s business.

Legislators from both sides exchanged words as they exited the chamber.

Also read: Anti-LGBTQ bill: Near chaos in Parliament as sponsors flare up over inaction

Member of Parliament for Ningo Prampram constituency and lead sponsor of the private member bill, Samuel Nartey George accused the Majority MPs of trying to frustrate the progress of the bill.

But speaking in Parliament on Thursday, December 7, Mr Osei-Owusu explained to the Speaker why he had to adjourn the House.

He said that the number of MPs present in the House was less than 50 members, underscoring the fact that the figure did not constitute a quorum for conducting business, let alone making a decision on the bill.

The First Deputy Speaker stated that it is inappropriate for the sponsors of the bill to presume that the failure of the bill to progress indicates an attempt by the Majority to deliberately thwart the process.

Mr. Osei-Owusu added that there is no need to rush the passage of the bill, emphasising that it should undergo the appropriate stages to endure and serve the country effectively in the long run.

“I think that it is most unfair to insist that because it was not taken yesterday, then it means that I am against it, decided against it and that members of the side are deliberately frustrating the process.”

“Mr Speaker, whoever reported to you that I did not carry out the instruction was wrong,” he said.

Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, has established a special committee to investigate the non-payment of customers of the defunct Gold Coast Fund, despite the allocation of funds in the budget.

This move follows a petition submitted to the House by some customers of the defunct fund, presented by Bawku Central MP Mahama Ayariga.

In their petition, the customers are calling for an inquiry to ascertain the reasons behind the government’s failure to disburse their locked-up funds.

Additionally, they are urging authorities to enforce the payment of their investments by the government.

• Read also: Mahama Ayariga petitions Parliament to probe delayed funds disbursement to aggrieved Gold Coast Fund customers

The former Information Minister, while presenting the petition, expressed concern about the adverse effects of the delay on the affected customers and called on the House to promptly address the issue as their representatives.

• Read also: Aggrieved Gold Coast Fund customers to stage 32-hour protest at Finance Ministry today

“I wish to present a petition by customers of defunct Gold Coast Fund Management. Mr Speaker, pursuant to Order 76 (3), I move that the petition be read and I also move that by Order 76(3) that the petition be referred to a committee pursuant to Order 191 of our Standing Orders which deals with the constitution of special or ad-hoc committees to look into matters referred to it by Mr Speaker.”

Subsequently, the Speaker suggested the members of the committee and encouraged them to initiate their work promptly.

“I, therefore, establish a committee to receive the petition to investigate and report to the house. I will propose that the Committee chaired by Joe Ghartey and the other members include Nii Lante Vanderpuje, Benjamin Yeboah Sekyere, Gizella Tettteh-Agbotui, Kwasi Ameyaw Cheremeh and two technical experts. They are Dr Theophilus Acheampong and Anthony Kisseh.”

Speaker of Parliament, Alban S. K. Bagbin has asked the Minister of Education, Dr Yaw Osei Adutwum to appear before Parliament on Monday, December 4.

The Speaker’s direction follows concerns raised by the Minority in Parliament on the proposed reopening date for fresh SHS students and to provide updates on the reopening dates of schools.

Mr Bagbin proposed that the reopening date be shifted to the first week of January 2024 to allow both parents and teachers to prepare adequately, and urged Dr Adutwum to reconsider the decision.

“The house calls on and urges the Minister of Education to reconsider the directive by the Ministry of Education to students and authorities, including teaching and non-teaching staff, to resume academic work on Monday, December 4, 2023.”

“The house proposes for the consideration of the Ministry of Education the first week of January 2023 for the resumption of academic work in these schools. The Minister of Education is directed thereafter to report to brief the house on Monday, December 4.”

The Speaker explained that this adjustment would facilitate better readiness among educators and parents for the upcoming academic term.

The Ministry of Education has since received a plea to review the choice of permitting first–year Senior High School (SHS) students to commence classes on Monday, December 4, 2023.

The action comes after the Member of Parliament (MP) representing the Akasti North constituency and ranking Member of Education, Peter Kwasi Nortsu-Kotoe commented on the perceived haste in permitting students to return to schools on Monday.

On the back of this, the Minority in Parliament collectively expressed their discomfort with the reopening date, emphasising the challenges parents would face from Thursday to Sunday in preparing their children for school by Monday.

According to the Minority MPs, they found it difficult to comprehend why school placement were only released a few days ago and students were hurriedly asked to report on Monday, December 4.

The MPs mentioned that they have been receiving calls from their constituents, asking for assistance and even requesting changes to be made to their school placements.

Minority MP for North Tongu constituency, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, emphasised that he had received calls from teachers expressing exhaustion and strongly advocate for additional time to rest.

The Ministry of Education however insists that First-Year Senior High School students are to report to school on Monday, December 4, 2023. The Ministry has explained that the academic calendar was put out several weeks before now, according to its spokesperson, Kwasi Kwarteng.

“Resumption date for students within the SHS space remains Monday, December 4, 2023. The expectation is that students report on the first day. But let me also hasten to add that, the first-year students who are unable to report on the first day will not automatically lose their slots.”

“Students can report the following day or even the following week, as we have always witnessed. If you look at the academic calendar, it had already been within the public space for some time now and the expectation was that parents, guardians, and even students prepared ahead of time,” he added.

The Chiefs and people of Suma-Ahenkro in the Jaman North District of the Bono Region over the weekend enstooled the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin as the “Adasuokohene” of the Suma Traditional Area.

He was enstooled under the name Nana Adasuokohene (a god possessing strength to resist external powers) Alban Bagbin I.

His new chieftaincy title, according to Odeneho Dr Afram Brempong III, the Paramount Chief of the Suma Traditional Area, was to recognise and acknowledge his immeasurable contribution to the fight against LGBTQI in the country.

Read also: https://www.myjoyonline.com/i-prefer-to-die-than-to-see-lgbtq-legalised-alban-bagbin/

Odeneho Dr Brempong III took Mr Bagbin through the customary rites of the chiefs and people of the area to seal his enstoolment at a durbar to climax the 2023 Suma Royal Retreat at Suma-Ahenko.

During the weeklong retreat on the theme, “If the son, therefore, shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed”, a theme picked from the Holy scriptures, Suma-Ahenko natives and royals, home and abroad returned home to strengthen family ties.

Odeneho Dr Brempong III congratulated Speaker Bagbin, saying the chieftaincy title was a reserve for only deserving and resilient individuals and politicians.

The Paramount Chief observed that the Speaker of Parliament had demonstrated to the people the “power to defend Ghana from the invasion of LBGTQI community despite the mist and threats from Western powers”.

Read also: https://www.myjoyonline.com/speaker-slams-kamala-harris-take-on-lgbtq-in-ghana-calls-out-akufo-addo/

Odeneho Prof Brempong III said he was optimistic that the Speaker of Parliament, and the House in general would remain resolute and not allow anything to sway or influence them to accept LGBTQI in order to preserve the nation’s culture and tradition.

On his part, Speaker Bagbin expressed gratitude to the chiefs and people of the town and pledged to continue with his stance against LGBTQI.

Some New Patriotic Party Members of Parliament have disagreed with comments by the Majority leader, Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu criticising the Speaker of Parliament for adjourning parliamentary proceedings on Wednesday.

Speaker Alban Bagbin adjourned sitting to enable members and himself to attend the 2023 National Development Conference held by the Church of Pentecost at the Pentecost Convention Centre, Gomoa Fetteh, to discuss national issues.

The two-day conference which comes to an end on Friday, is under the theme: ‘Moral Vision and National Development.’

Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu who spoke on the floor of Parliament on Wednesday, challenged the Speaker’s verdict and said that if care is not taken, “We may be setting some precedent that may be difficult to follow.”

He urged that Mr Bagbin be cautious so that if another religious denomination comes to invite the House, it does not set a bad precedent.

Read also: Parliament may be setting a bad precedent for not sitting – Majority Leader tells Speaker

According to the Suame Constituency MP, there was no formal communication on the floor of Parliament to that effect.

But Mr Bagbin interrupted him midway through his comment and stated that there was a formal communication about the event.

“The importance of the event was hammered home by me. By the time I informed the House, I even mentioned the other dignitaries, Chief Justice, President and the House is also invited so it is not just the Speaker or the Leaders. I also called on members to participate in the proceedings. So I have done that, it is just that you were not present,” he said.

Following this, some MPs have jumped to the defence of Mr Bagbin saying there was nothing wrong with his decision.

Speaking to JoyNews after the end of day-1 of the conference, the MP for Assin South Constituency, Rev John Ntim Fordjour said that “If there’s anything that was to hold on for this event to take place, it is worth it.”

For his side, the MP for Akim Oda Constituency, Alexandar Kwesi Acquah (NPP) reiterated his colleague’s position and said that “In Parliament, some of these bills have been lagging behind because we haven’t been oriented so well because of mindset, because of our thinking too much of politics.”

MP for Obuasi East Constituency, Patrick Boakye Yiadom also agreed with the ruling of the Speaker saying that “when he declared that there will be no sitting today, it literally means it is a national event so the Speaker was not wrong.”

The Supreme Court is being asked to impose sanctions on the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin for allowing the House to proceed with the anti-LGBTQ+ bill despite pending legal actions.

Researcher Dr Amanda Odoi contends that the Speaker has treated court processes with disdain and contempt.

“The respondent has continually violated and shown utter disregard for the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana and the court process.

“That the respondent’s clear, intentional and continuous disregard of the court process necessitates the Respondent being sanctioned for contempt in the public interest and to protect the dignity of the Court,” the Court documents state.

Dr Odoi is one of two citizens who have sued the Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney General over the anti-LGBTQ+ bill.

She contends her checks show that the Speaker has been served with all relevant court processes including one asking the court to place an injunction on Parliament’s consideration of the law.

She said despite this, the Speaker caused the Bill to proceed to its Second Reading in Parliament.

“That by his conduct in directing or causing Parliament to proceed to a Second Reading of the Bill, in full knowledge of the pending suit and related interlocutory injunction application, the Respondent has disregarded and disrespected the authority of this Court.

“That such disregard interferes with the outcome of the pending litigation, brings the administration of justice into disrepute and undermines public confidence in the judicial system.”

She, therefore, believes an imposition of sanctions will preserve the court’s dignity.

The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin has stated that there is an urgent need for the Ga Traditional Council to restore the sense of togetherness among its people and re-assert its authority in matters of governance and nation-building.

Formerly regarded as one of the most prestigious traditional states in West Africa, and having birthed many of Ghana’s leaders and academicians, the speaker believes unity and strong values will be in the best interest of the Ga State.

He was speaking during a courtesy call on him by representatives of the Ga Traditional Council, led by the Greater Accra Regional Minister, Henry Quartey.

The visit was to officially inform the Speaker of the passing of the Ga Mashie Queen Mother, Naa Dedei Omaedru III.

In light of the challenges facing the Ga-Dangbe Community, Mr Bagbin advised the Council to use the occasion of the death of the Queen-mother to educate the younger generation of Ga people by highlighting her outstanding works in a way that will elevate the Ga culture.

He asserted that “despite the Ga State’s good fortune in having to accommodate the nation’s capital, many can argue that over time, your influence has diminished with respect to the country’s culture and governance architecture in a way that renders the Ga people marginalised.”

Mr. Bagbin eulogised the late Queen Mother as a unifier who served the interest of the Ga State and the Ga-Dangbe community at large.

He exhorted the council to source more information about the Queen’s early years, her contribution to the development and growth of Ga communities, and the impact she made.

He believed this would serve as a historical reference book in honour of the Queen and help educate the Ga people and other readers about Ga culture, values, and customs.

As a tribe known for its remarkable contribution to women’s empowerment, he said there was a need to strengthen women’s initiatives and participation so they could step up and take up leadership and strategic roles.

The Speaker suggested that a lot more must be done to re-position the Ga-Dangbe community’s image as a powerful traditional group in Ghana and West Africa.

“Telling our story from where we started, where we are, and what becomes the path ahead for the next generation is essential to maintaining a thriving Ga culture. Let us not forget that if we do not share our cultural history, others will have a chance to do so in a distorted fashion.”

The Chief of Staff of the Ga Traditional Council, Lady Justice Yarle Amoah, praised the Speaker for his tenacity and drive in supporting the Ga State.

She said there were a number of planned activities to commemorate the late Queen’s life and impact on the Ga State.

The celebration of her life, she said, will help to promote, market, and reposition the Ga culture and its traditional values.

The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin has been presented with the Suma Adinkra Sword, the highest award of the Suma Traditional Council.

A statement issued by the Public Affairs Directorate of Parliament and copied to the Ghana News Agency on Wednesday, said Mr Bagbin was also presented with a citation in recognition of his sterling performance.

The Omanhene of the Suma Traditional Area, Odeneho Dr Affram Brempong presenting the award, indicated that Mr Bagbin’s stance on preserving the culture, values, traditions and customs of the people of Ghana informed the honour.

Mr Bagbin in his acceptance remarks, expressed his appreciation to the chiefs and people of the Suma Traditional Area.

He also called on the Chiefs and Traditional leaders to be part of the Governance of the country.

The statement said Mr Bagbin assured Ghanaians that, Parliament would do the right thing to see the passage of the “Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill, 2021.”

The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, has reiterated that the money paid to Members of Parliament (MPs) every four years is accumulated salary arrears (gratuity) and not ex gratia.

He said at the beginning of every Parliament, most legislators, including himself as the Speaker, did not know the exact salary they were entitled to until the end of their four-year term; a practice he described as “wrong”.

He explained that whenever Ghanaians talked about budget for Parliament, they considered such budget as money earmarked for salaries and conditions of service of MPs, “especially what people refer to as ex gratia.”

“Gratuity is different from ex gratia; what they pay MPs is gratuity and it is another wrong practice because as we sit here in our third year, which is three years down, I as the Speaker do not know my salary,” he revealed.

Unstable salary

Speaking during a visit to the Graphic Communications Group Limited (GCGL), Mr Bagbin said: “My salary has not yet been fixed and so every month I am paid something based on what my predecessor was earning.’’

“But we all know from the labour front that every year they try to renegotiate with the government and so at the end of the four years then they (government) come out with your salary.”

“And that will definitely be higher than the first year and so they have to pay you arrears.

“It is those arrears that balloon to what the Members of Parliament take at the end of four years and people call that ex gratia,” he explained.

In the company of some staff from Parliament, the Speaker was at GCGL to share his perspectives on the annual Press Freedom Index on Ghana and discuss how the media could partner Parliament to celebrate activities marking the 30th anniversary of parliamentary democracy.

At the meeting were the Managing Director of GCGL, Ato Afful; the Editor, Graphic, Theophilus Yartey, and the editorial team of the Daily Graphic.

Reducing cost of election

The Speaker, however, noted that even the gratuity paid to MPs every four years was not enough as was generally perceived.

“But all that they pay you, I can tell you, is not sufficient to do one election.

If you want to get to Parliament now, please if you do not have GH¢2 million you cannot contest a parliamentary primary election and no ex gratia can give you that money,” he said.

With the high cost associated with politicians contesting elections in the country, Mr Bagbin suggested the need “for us to do something to reduce that cost of doing politics.”

In line with that, he called for what he described as political financing or public funding for political parties.

Car loans

Touching on loans by MPs to purchase their own vehicles, the Speaker said legislators did not want vehicle loans but support from the state just like other public office holders.

“We just want to be supported just like other public office holders such as District Chief Executives (DCEs), ministers and deputy ministers.

We do the same work and they are given Landcruisers and saloon cars that are funded and fuelled every day.

“But you as an MP go to take a loan to buy a car, you insure it, you maintain it and you fuel it to do the same work,” he bemoaned.

Systemic corruption

While acknowledging that it was not possible for MPs to insure, maintain and fuel their vehicles with the same salary, Mr Bagbin called for state support for MPs to curb corruption.

“That is why when you people (journalists) write against us and they become Members of Parliament, they find it difficult to continue that language.

“Because you come and meet the reality and you find out that it is not the problem of your predecessor but it is the system that causes systemic corruption,” he said.

The Speaker added that “until we change that system, it will be difficult to contain corruption.”

Support for journalists

Expressing happiness over the initiative for the Speaker to travel outside Ghana with some selected journalists per trip to attend international events, Mr Bagbin said reports emanating from reporters had helped Ghanaians to appreciate that the work of legislators was not only “hear, hear.”

“We also represent the country internationally and this is what we do to allow Ghanaians place some value on Members of Parliament and what we do to move Ghana in the right direction,” he said.

The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin has directed the ministers of Education, Finance and Agric to appear before Parliament next week. 

The summons is over the picketing of the National Food Buffer Stock Company (NAFCO) offices by its suppliers.

According to the Speaker, the three ministers must explain to Parliament what their challenges are in ensuring the suppliers are paid. 

He said when the challenges are known, the House could assist them to resolve same. 

“So I agree that the business committee should programme for the three ministers to come before the house. The three ministers are the Finance, Food and Agriculture and Education to tell us what the challenge is.”

“We will be able to assist the executive to solve these matters. That is why we have established the committee for ways and means.” 

This was after the Builsa South, Dr Clement Apaak raised the issue on the floor on Friday, July 7. 

Already, the Ranking Member on Parliament’s Education Committee, Peter Nortsu-Kotoe, has accused NAFCO of dishonesty in its dealings with the group.

He said the creditors of these suppliers are harassing them due to no fault of theirs. 

“In my conversation with the suppliers, they alleged that they have not been paid for the past two years for the food they supplied to the various senior high schools through the Buffer Stock Company and that they are owed about GH¢278 million.”

“Some of them have gone to the bank to take loans with interest, and the interest is getting higher and higher with time. So, they are appealing to Buffer Stock to pay them,” he said in a Citi FM interview on Thursday.

Government owes the food suppliers in excess of GH¢270 million for food that was supplied to Senior High Schools across the country from 2021 to 2023.

Due to this, some members of the National Food Suppliers Association spent two continuous nights at the premises of NAFCO to press home their demand for the payment of sums owed them.

Member of Parliament for Kwadaso constituency in the Ashanti region, Kinsley Nyarko says the Tamale Central MP, Murtala Mohammed disrespected the Speaker of Parliament with his comment during the debate on the anti-LGBTQ+ Bill on Wednesday.

Speaking on JoyNews’ AM Show on Thursday, July 6, Prof Nyarko said that Murtala did not show any remorse to retract his unparliamentary comment.

According to Prof Nyarko it was discourtesy on the part of the Tamale Central MP after the Second Deputy Speaker asked him to withdraw the derogatory comments he was said to have passed at Ablekuma West MP, Ursula Owusu-Ekuful.

The professor added that the Tamale Central MP also disrespected the entire House even when the Minority Leader and the Deputy Chief Whip asked him to withdraw his comment.

“We are discussing a sensitive topic like this and you had a go at your colleague Member of Parliament when the Second Deputy Speaker was trying to plead with you to withdraw those words, you said no and he had to even talk to your leader Ato Forson to speak to you, all this, Murtala didn’t listen and even yelled undermining the authority of the Speaker, that’s not fair. At least give him that honour, that dignity as the Speaker of Parliament.

“I feel he disrespected the Speaker of Parliament because he didn’t retract those words and even when the deputy chief whip was asked to talk to him, he didn’t listen. Ato Forson himself, the leader of their side, he didn’t listen so he disrespected everybody,” Prof Nyarko said.

During the debate of the controversial anti-LGBTQ+ Bill in Parliament on Wednesday, July 6, Mr Murtala Mohammed was said to have described Ursula Owusu-Ekuful as a practitioner of LGBTQ, a charge he promptly denied.

While he was not on the floor, he is said to have passed the comment while his colleague South Dayi MP, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor was on the floor contributing to debate on the legislation of the Anti-LGBTQ bill. It led to a brief interruption as a protesting Ursula responded.

She was incensed by the development and accused the legislator of calling her a practitioner of LGBTQ.

“I sat here and repeatedly heard Hon Murtala refer to me as a practitioner of LGBTQ to the hearing of everyone in this house… and in response to that if I say he is mad, it is only a mad man who will refer to his colleague in this house as a practitioner of LGBTQ when you haven’t seen me having sexual intercourse with your wife or your daughter or your mother,” she flared up.

To this end, the Kwadaso MP asserted that it was needless for Murtala to pass such a comment to a colleague when he does not have the evidence to prove it.

“…I think that he has to tone down a bit, what he did to Ursula yesterday was needless, was uncalled for and was an attempt to demean the person of Ursula.

“That was not right and honourable members must be very careful about our utterances especially when it comes to women and our colleagues. You see, you don’t have evidence to support that. Why do you say she’s a practitioner of LGBTQ, you don’t do that.

“You don’t have the evidence so why do you even go there, we must respect each other,” he said.

The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin has directed that the controversial Anti-LGBT Bill be scheduled for a second reading next week.

Although a specific day was not given, the motion of the second reading of the bill is expected to happen on Tuesday or Thursday.

Already, the bill has suffered two legal challenges.

https://myjoyonline.com/speaker-attorney-general-dragged-to-court-over-anti-lgbtq-bill-and-its-fiscal-impact/

Parliament’s Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee has recommended the approval of the bill albeit with some variations.

Speaking on the floor of Parliament on Friday, 1st Deputy Speaker, Joseph Osei-Owusu announced the directive of Speaker Bagbin and said it must be complied with without fail.

“The Proper Human Sexuality and the Ghanaian Family Value Bill be programmed for Tuesday or Thursday. Whatever it is, it must be on the order paper next week.

“The motion of the second reading must be programmed either Tuesday or Thursday,” he said.

The controversial Anti-LGBT Bill is a private member bill that was presented to Speaker Alban Bagbin on Tuesday, June 29, 2021.

The proponents want the promotion, advocacy, funding, and acts of homosexuality to be criminalised in the country.

However, some groups are against the passing of the bill saying it will infringe on some human rights.

Already, the Speaker and Attorney General have been dragged to court over the bill by a private citizen Paul Boama Sefa, who believes the two have breached portions of Ghana’s constitution regarding how the legislative body handled the Human Rights and Family Values Bill, 2021.

Meanwhile, the Ningo-Prampram MP, Sam George who’s a lead campaigner for the bill, says the court does not have the power to prevent parliament from passing the bill.

https://myjoyonline.com/anti-lgbtq-bill-no-court-can-prevent-parliament-from-passing-it-sam-george

The vocal proponent of the Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill says the judiciary should not overstep its boundaries by attempting to dictate the legislative process.

Speaking on JoyNews‘ AM Show, Mr George questioned the court’s willingness to entertain two recent cases brought before it against the bill’s passage.

“I’m wondering why the courts are going ahead to even entertain any case at this point in time because the courts must bear in mind that no court can issue a judgment or give directive to the President that you can’t discuss this matter in Cabinet.”

He highlighted that while the courts play a crucial role in ensuring due process and keeping the legislation in check, they cannot assume to have the power to impede parliament’s right to pass laws.

The Speaker of Parliament, Alban S.K. Bagbin has summoned the Minister for Works and Housing, Francis Asenso-Boakye, and the Minister of Finance Ken Ofori-Atta, to appear before the house.

They are to brief the House on measures taken against flooding in parts of the country latest by next week.

According to the former Nadowli-Kaleo MP, the summoned ministers are to provide details on how the government intends to deal with the canker.

“Minister responsible for Works and Housing be programmed by the Business Committee to appear before the House together with the Minister of Finance to give us a brief on the action being taken to make this a thing of the past, and so we expect that at latest before the end of next week, these ministers should appear before us.”

“If the substantive minister is not there, there is a minister of state at the Ministry that can come and represent him, and this is a very important matter and one of the ways we could support national leadership to find a solution is for us to pass the budget Act.”

Mr Bagbin added that the continuous recurrence of the problem should be a cause for concern for all. 

“It is a very important subject matter because since I entered Parliament in 1993, we have had so many statements of this nature almost every year, and we are not finding solutions to the problem. I think it starts from the priority settings, and Parliament must be involved and not wait until a month to the end of the year and the budget is thrust upon, and you have no time to talk about even increasing budget allocations,” the Speaker added.

The Speaker’s order followed a statement on the floor of parliament by the Minority Chief Whip, Governs Agbodza. 

The Adaklu MP in his statement disclosed that a woman and her two children are missing, with others injured and property destroyed as a result of the flooding in Accra.

Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin has assured the Chief of Gonjaland Yagbon Wura Bii-Kunuto Jewu Soale I that LGBTQ+ can never be passed under his tenure.

He said once he remains the Speaker, Parliament will never sanction the LGBTQ+ practice in Ghana.

Mr Bagbin said even though he does not vote in Parliament, he guides the House and knows that the members are 100 per cent against any culture or practice of LGBTQ.

”I can assure you, I have made it clear and just two days ago I said, I cannot live in a society where it is practiced.

“We have values, we have families, we love our women and they love us. We are God-fearing people and God ordered us to take control of the world and procreate to fill the world and we will do so,” he said.

The Speaker of Parliament was responding to concerns by the Yagbon Wura on the issues of LGBTQ in the country.

The chief had earlier said the position of the people of the area on the LGBTQ was that it was an abomination and alien to their culture.

But Mr Bagbin said they will not allow any man or woman to go and wed any animal in the name of marriage.

He adde that it is not only unnatural but abnormal.

The Speaker assured the overlord that they are together in the fight against LGBTQ.

The former Nadowli Kaleo MP said he believes with the support of the chiefs and the people’s representatives in Parliament will do the right thing.

The overlord in his address said the position of the community on the issue of the LGBTO+ which is pending before Parliament is that it is unacceptable for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman.

He, however, urged the leaders in Parliament to be guided on this and never import the worrying phenomenon into the country.

Yagbon Wura Bii-Kunuto Jewu Soale said he was certain that the 8th Parliament will disapprove unanimously against the practice.

Meanwhile, the chief also raised concerns over communal hunting in the Savanna region.

He said they have resolved as a traditional council to ban communal hunting in the region to protect the wildlife and fragile ecological landscape of the area.

Yagbon Wura Bii-Kunuto Jewu Soale said parliament should intensify the existing laws or enact a law to control the act.

He also appealed to the Speaker and Ghanaians to collaborate with duty bearers to bring social vices which are on high in the country under control.

Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin has expressed dismay about the activities of Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) people in the country.

Mr Bagbin stressed that he would not partake in any task that seeks to legalise the activities of LGBTQ people in Ghana.

“For you all to participate in it, count me out of Ghana because I will prefer to join my maker than to live.

“That is me, I am a Catholic and I will not do anything that will end the world because God says the world is eternal until he comes back we cannot do that to end the world,” he said.

The Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill 2021, also known as the anti-LGBTQI+ Bill, is currently under review by the Parliamentary Select Committee on Constitutional, Legal, and Parliamentary Affairs.

The Committee seeks to provide for human sexual rights and Ghanaian family values while seeking to prohibit the activities of LGBTQ in the country.

The bill was proposed by some eight MPs of both the Majority and Minority caucuses.

Speaking at a press conference in Tamale as part of Parliament’s 30th Anniversary Celebration, the Speaker of Parliament said western countries which are advocating the rights of homosexuals, are already facing backlash.

“…They have the repercussions in their country and I can tell you that in the next 50 years, there will be no indigenous European in the world.”

Mr Bagbin noted that the Bill will be passed under his tenure as Speaker.

Meanwhile, the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee of Parliament has recommended that the House passes the controversial Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill 2021.

According to the Committee, the majority of Ghanaians are in favour of the legislation.

The Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin has disclosed that this session of Parliament will pass the anti-LGBTQ+ law.

He said Parliament will consider it and ensure it’s passed despite the two court cases against it.

The Speaker said there was no injunction on Parliament, therefore, it will go ahead with its process.

Speaking at a press soirée organised by Parliament in Tamale, the former Nadowli Kaleo MP said he would rather die than live in Ghana if LGBQ+ is allowed by the law.

Mr Bagbin reiterated that he cannot be in a society where LGBTQ is officially sanctioned.

He added, however, that even though he was totally against their practice, he thinks it is wrong to abuse their rights.

“On the LGBTQ+, the +++ being other things they don’t want you to know, you can go and marry a cat and wed in a church, and you say the law should allow it? Anyway, I have declared that I can’t live in such a society that’s why I love my Ghana,” he said.

Mr Bagbin said LGBTQ+ things were not right, and that was why the European court had ruled against them.

”They are not rights, that is why everywhere in the world they are passing laws and regulating them,” he said.

The Speaker said Ghana’s law was inadequate, therefore, there is a need for legislation to regulate their activities.

Mr Bagbin said Parliament has supported the committee working on the bill to roam the world including Ghana to talk about family values.

”We are talking about Ghanaian family values, we are not talking about some countries that don’t have values. I made it clear to them…we have some values and they must be recognised and accepted by our law,” he told the journalists.

He added that currently, most countries in Europe have started feeling the repercussion of the LBGTQ practice in their countries.

“They have seen the repercussion in their countries but I can tell you that in the next 50 years, there will be no indigenous European in the world mark it,” he added.

The Speaker said the fertility rate in Europe currently is 1.3 adding that the first country to perish is Greece with a fertility rate of 1.1.

He said Africa and America are still high but the forecast is that in 100 years to come the world will be a Muslim world.

“I don’t want Ghana to be extinct, I want Ghana to continue to survive and I won’t allow anything to stop it from doing that,” he said.

The Speaker’s press soiree was part of activities organised by Parliament to mark its 30th anniversary.

The Speaker and his team are expected to visit the overlord of Mamprugu, the Overlord of Dagbona and the Yagbon Wura and also hold a public forum in Tamale.

A private citizen, Paul Boama Sefa, has dragged the Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney General to the High Court.

He is alleging that the two have breached portions of Ghana’s constitution regarding how the legislative body handled the Human Rights and Family Values Bill, 2021.

He says despite the law having financial implications for the consolidated fund, it was not handed to parliament with a fiscal impact analysis document.

Parliament’s Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee has already urged the House to pass the bill into law.

But it appears this may suffer some setbacks. The individual behind this action describes himself as a farmer and a private citizen based in the Ashanti Region.

Paul says the Speaker of Parliament has the mandate to ensure that all legislative processes are undertaken in accordance with the law.

He says the Public Financial Management Act requires that any bill to be laid in parliament should be accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis. He claims the Human Rights and Family Values Bill does not have this attached to it

Paul made reference to the Attorney General’s memo to Parliament where he makes this same point about the lack of a fiscal impact analysis.

Substantively, the plaintiff wants the court to restrain the speaker, his deputies etc from proceeding with any processes regarding the bill until this is complied with.

The Committee earlier addressed the AG’s concern in its final report to Parliament.

The individual made reference to this noting that portions of the bill impose a charge on the consolidated fund.

The Committee said it, however, noted through the amendments it was proposing, this will be taken care of.

The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, has said that every Parliament is as strong as its committees.

Consequently, strengthening parliamentary committees to be able to deliver on their tasks and assignments should be the primary focus of all legislatures.

The Speaker of Parliament said this at a meeting in Westminster, London, with Sir Stephen Timms, the Chairman of the Works and Pensions Committee of the UK Parliament.

He is leading a parliamentary delegation to the UK Parliament to discuss cooperation between the Parliaments of Ghana and the UK, approaches to conducting parliamentary business effectively, managing hung parliaments and narrow majorities, making parliamentary scrutiny and oversight more efficient, and promoting a collaborative work environment in parliament.

Mr Bagbin said given the critical role of committees in parliamentary democracy, Ghana’s parliament was considering opening up the proceedings of such committees to the media for coverage.

He cited the examples of the Appointments Committee and the Public Accounts Committee, which are the two that currently mostly offer public live coverage.

He also shared Ghana’s experience regarding the role of the Speaker or Deputy Speaker as a Member of Parliament vis a vis voting on issues before the House and how that has played out in recent times.

What came out was that the Speaker in the UK Parliament only exercises the casting vote when required, which is always in favour of maintaining the status quo, and not necessarily to tilt decisions in support of partisan interests.  

Sir Timms said the select committees of the UK Parliament were mandated to undertake enquiries on issues of policy within the various government departments that the committees were expected to have oversight responsibility for.

Beyond the government departments, the powers of the select committees clothe them with the authority to demand information and other documentation even from individuals outside the government.

The Select Committee Chair shared in Ghana’s Parliament’s ambition of bringing parliament closer to the people by making the proceedings of select committees open to the media.

He spoke about the UK Parliament’s journey along that path and said since the tenure of Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister, the media had always had free access to the proceedings of the UK Parliament’s Select Committees.

Sir Timms spoke about the path to chairing the various select committees in the UK and said it is determined by the composition of the House.

The percentage of MPs that a political party has in the House determines the number of select committees that representatives of that political party can chair.

As a result, both members of the majority and minority can chair select committees, which are determined by a simple majority vote of the members of the committee on eligible candidates.

The Chairman of the Works and Pensions Committee of the UK Parliament during the meeting was Diana Atungire-Ocaya, the Strategic Lead for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association’s (UK Branch) Overseas Territory Project, and Niger Mills, MP, Procedure and International Development Committees.    

Mr Bagbin’s delegation included the Clerk to Parliament, Cyril Kwabena Oteng Nsiah, the Assistant Clerk, Ebenezer Djietror, Legal Counsel to the Speaker, Magnus Kofi Amoatey, the Director of Communication, Gayheart Mensah and the Deputy Director of Parliamentary Relations, Charles Dery Tenzagh.

The Majority Caucus has rejected the allegations that the Nanton MP, Mohammed Hardi Tuferu, was not in the chamber during the passage of the three new tax bills.

According to the Second Majority Chief Whip, Habib Iddrisu, the claims are untrue. 

The Tolon lawmaker said that even though his colleague was involved in a near-fatal accident, he was rushed to Parliament to ensure his vote was not lost. 

He said the Nanton MP had minor bruises from the accident and was attended by the nurses and doctors at a washroom in Parliament. 

“The time we were taking the voice vote, he had come to Parliament and I put him in the washroom, we didn’t put him in the Chamber, we put him in the washroom and brought the nurses from Parliament and a doctor to attend to him. The Majority Leader came, and the nurses from Parliament came to attend to him in the washroom”.

“He had minor bruises on his face, so they cleaned it up and even stitched it up. So he was stitched in Parliament in the washroom,” Mr Habib revealed this in an interview with Citi FM on Monday, April 3. 

Already, the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, has said nothing untoward occurred in the passage of the new tax laws. 

According to the Speaker, he did nothing untoward by including Mr Tuferu in the headcounts that were carried out on the floor of parliament.

“Members who are incapacitated shall upon reporting their incapacity to the Speaker through the Clerk shall be recorded. 

We have some of our members that are incapacitated and what I did was to ask the Whips to go and physically see them to assess their incapacitation and whether they are of sound mind.”

MP for Nanton, Mohammed Hardi Tuferu was involved in an accident on his way to take part in a vote on the new tax bills laid before Parliament on Friday, March 31.

He is said to have suffered a deep cut on his forehead but was still taken to Parliament to vote before he was taken to hospital for further treatment.

The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, has declared the Kumawu seat vacant. 

The declaration follows the passing of the Member of Parliament (MP), Philip Basoah on Tuesday, March 28.

Alban S.K. Bagbin on Friday, before the house going recess said the Electoral Commission (EC) has written to inform him about his passing. 

The former Nadowli-Kaleo lawmaker thud declared the seat vacant. 

Following this, the EC will conduct a bye-election within the next ninety days in accordance with Section 3 of the EC’s Amendment Act 1996 ACT 52.

Mr Basoah was confirmed dead in the early hours of Tuesday, March 28 according to a family source.

He died at the age of 53 at the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital.

Mr Philip Basoah was born on Tuesday, November 18, 1969.

The former MP was one of three MPs who were absent from Parliament on Friday, March 24, during the voting of some six new Ministers appointed by President Akufo-Addo.

The late Mr Basoah was a member of the sixth and seventh Parliament.

Before being an MP, he was a Chief Executive for the Sekyere East District from June 2005 to January 2009 and was also a Tutor at the Agogo State College.

Until his death, Basoah was the Chairman of the Employment, Social Welfare and State Enterprises Committee of Parliament.

The Speaker of Parliament, Mr Alban Bagbin has said nothing untoward was done in the passage of the three revenue bills despite the absence of some Members of Parliament on Friday.

Addressing members in the house following the vote, he indicated that he only followed the rules of the house.

“Honourable Members, I did not do anything untoward. Members who are incapacitated shall upon reporting their incapacity to the Speaker through the Clerk be recorded,” Mr Bagbin explained.

“We have some of our members that are incapacitated and what I did was to ask the Whips to go and physically see them to assess their incapacitation and whether they are of sound mind,” he said.

This comes after Members of Parliament (MPs)- Mr Mohammed Hardi Tuferu, MP for Nanton and Mr Ebenezer Kojo Kum, MP for Ahanta West were unavailable during the head count that saw the approval of the three revenue Bills.

Mr Tuferu, also a Deputy Minister for Food and Agriculture was reported to be involved in an accident on Friday while on his way to the House to participate in the vote on the financial bills under consideration.

As a result, Mr Tuferu was driven to the house in an ambulance with Whips on both sides of the house directed by the Speaker to confirm the situation.

Parliament on Friday, March 31, 2023, by 137 votes to 136 passed the Excise Duty (Amendment) Bill, 2022.

The passage of the Bill followed a lengthy disagreement between the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC) Minority and the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP) majority.

Mr Bagbin at the end of the headcount declared that the “yeas” was 137 and the “nays” 136.

Among the objects of the Bill is to amend the Excise Duty Act, 2014 (Act 878) to revise the excise tax rates for cigarettes and other tobacco products to conform with the ECOWAS Protocols and raise revenue to mitigate the harmful effects of these excisable products.

It also seeks to impose excise duty on sweetened beverages and electronic cigarettes, and electronic liquids to increase revenue.

The House also passed the Income Tax (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2022 which seeks to amend the Income Tax Act, 2015 (Act 896) to revise the rates of income tax for individuals and introduce an additional income tax bracket while the Growth and Sustainability Bill, 2022 to impose a special levy to be known as the Growth and Sustainability Levy to raise revenue for the growth and fiscal sustainability of the economy was also passed.

The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Bagbin has urged MPs to take their health seriously.

According to the Speaker, the proceedings of the House each day is tiring and stressful, thus advising the MPs to avoid long sitting and seek medical reviews.

“We should try to reduce the stress that we go through when we try to represent our people. I don’t need to emphasise the need for us to do continuous medical checks and I don’t need to remind us that the rule is that we should not sit at one place for more than two hours,” he said in Parliament on Tuesday.

Mr Bagbin’s comments come after the demise of the Kumawu MP, Philip Basoah who was confirmed dead in the early hours of Tuesday, March 28 according to a family source.

He died at the age of 53 at the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital.

Commenting on the demise of the Kumawu MP, Mr Bagbin said that Mr Basoah was very healthy and took part in the proceedings of the House before he died.

“He came to the House and he was strong, a least he was ready to come in to vote and whiles we were haggling, he just collapsed. And here we are now.”

To this end, the Speaker cautioned the MPs to take good care of their health and said that the constituents would replace them if they fail to adhere to health measures and eventually dies.

“You know immediately you are no more, the people start thinking about replacing you. I made it clear when we went to the funeral of one of our former colleagues, I met the constituents wearing the T-shirts of the aspirant, not of the late Member of Parliament, and I recall saying there that if it ever happened to me, which would not happen, and you did that and came to my funeral, I would take you away. So please let’s take our health seriously.

The Speaker who also seemed concerned about his health on Friday, March 24, disclosed to the House that he is not ready to die.

His statement was also in accordance with the proceedings of the House accompanied by long sitting hours.

Mr Bagbin said to the House that “I am not prepared to die now. My 100 years haven’t come yet.”

He added that “I must be very clear that the first rule of nature is self-survival, if I am no longer Speaker of today, Parliament of Ghana will continue.”

Reiterating his statements in Parliament on Tuesday, the Speaker said “so please when I am suspending the House, you should understand. The Speaker should not be on the chair continuously for more than two hours, it’s unhealthy.”

The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin has paid tribute to former Old Tafo Member of Parliament, Dr Anthony Akoto Osei.

Mr. Alban Bagbin said Dr Akoto Osei’s demise has saddened his heart. 

According to him, the death is a shock to the whole nation, which he has not come to terms with. 

“We will play our roles and do all we can to assuage the pain of such a shock not only to the family, but to the whole nation. I was sad when I heard about his death. 

I think it’s proper we observe a minute of silence for his soul…may his soul and all the departed souls rest in perfect peace,” he said.

Mr Alban Bagbin made this known on Tuesday, March 21, before the commencement of proceedings. 

Following Dr Akoto Osei’s death, a number of statesmen and women have eulogised him. 

These personalities include the Vice President, Dr Mahamudu Bawumia. 

In a tribute to the former Minister of Monitoring and Evaluation, Dr Bawumia said the deceased was a “good friend” of his. 

Dr Bawumia said the former Minister’s fidelity to the country’s development was unquestionable.

He thus expressed his complete shock following Dr. Akoto Osei’s passing

“I have heard with shock, the passing of Hon. Dr. Anthony Akoto Osei, former MP and Minister of the Republic.

“Dr. was a very good friend and one of the people I worked closely with as a Deputy Governor and Vice President of the Republic.

“His dedication to serving mother Ghana was unpaired and his fidelity to the country’s development was unquestionable,” he said in a Facebook post on Monday. 

The late Dr Anthony Akoto Osei was a Ghanaian banker and politician.

He was a Minister of state at the Finance Ministry under President Kufuor’s regime. 

Dr Osei served as Member of Parliament for five terms. 

He died on Monday, March 20, 2023 after a short illness. 

The Speaker of Parliament has asked the Finance Minister, Ken Ofori-Atta, not to touch monies belonging to pensioners. 

Alban Bagbin said the current economic crisis can be solved without the funds of the pensioner. 

Wrapping up on the business of the House on Thursday, February 16, the former Nadowli Kaleo MP said Parliament will resist any attempt to include funds of pensioners in the Domestic Debt Exchange Programme (DDEP). 

“…what I can tell you is that leave our pensioners alone. You can solve the problem without touching their small money.”

Already, the Finance Minister has confirmed that all pensioners who failed to tender their old bonds for new ones under the exercise have been exempted from the programme.

Addressing Parliament on the state of the Domestic Debt Exchange Programme, Mr Ofori-Atta said the pensioners have nothing to worry about.

Mr Ofori-Atta added that he has officially written to the pensioner bondholders who did not sign onto the Programme about their exemption from the exercise.

“Mr Speaker, Government remains committed to the well-being and dignity of our Senior Citizens and Pensioners. 

“Indeed, it has personally caused me great distress as a number of them have picketed at the premises of the Ministry of Finance since Monday, 6th February 2023. 

“As I have already indicated in my Press Release dated 14th February 2023, government will honour their coupon payments and maturing principals, like all Government bonds, in line with Government’s Fiscal commitments.”

Ghana is currently requesting a $3 billion bailout from the IMF to bolster the struggling national economy.

Before the Bretton Woods institution’s board would evaluate Ghana’s request, one of the requirements is the domestic debt restructuring scheme.

A staff-level agreement between Ghana and the IMF was achieved in December, opening the door for the $3 billion rescue.

The General Superintendent of Assemblies of God Ghana, Rev Stephen Wengam, has observed that Ghana’s current hung Parliament has deepened the country’s democratic dispensation.  

According to him, this has enhanced consensus building and promoted political tolerance.

Rev Wengam was speaking when he led an eight-member delegation to pay a courtesy call on the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Bagbin at Parliament House in Accra.  

The purpose of the visit was to officially introduce the newly elected executives of the church to the Speaker and to invite him to the induction ceremony of the General Superintendent and the Outdooring of the Executive Presbytery Officers on the 25^th of February in Accra.

Rev. Stephen Wengam called for greater unity of all political players to help resolve the myriads of problems confronting Ghana, especially the current economic crises.

 He emphasised the need for all to unite to fight corruption.

Welcoming the delegation, the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin emphasised the need for the church and the state to partner and improve the lives and prospects of all Ghanaians.

He said Parliament will continue to represent the citizenry to deepen democracy and reminded the church not to relent on its efforts to speak truth to power.

Parliament will resume sitting on Tuesday, February 7, after legislators took a break for the Christmas and New Year holidays. 

A statement signed by Mr Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, Speaker of Parliament, and issued to the Ghana News Agency in Accra, on Tuesday, said: “The Third Session of the Eighth Parliament of the Fourth Republic shall commence at Ten o’clock in the forenoon of Tuesday, 7th February, 2023.” 

It said the Speaker of Parliament, by Clause (1) of Article 112 of the 1992 Constitution, appointed Parliament House, Accra, to be the place of meeting.  

“Know Ye All Men that in the exercise of the powers conferred on the Speaker by Clause (1) of Article 112 of the Constitution, I, Rt Hon. Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, Speaker of Parliament, by this Constitutional Instrument, appoint Parliament House Accra to be the place….” 

“… and Ten O’clock in the forenoon of Tuesday, 7th February 2023 to be the time at which the Third Session of the Eighth Parliament of the Fourth Republic shall commence,” the statement said. 

Parliament on Thursday, December 22, 2022, adjourned sine die, for the Christmas break after passing the Appropriation Bill for the 2023 Fiscal Year. 

The break also marked the end of the Third Meeting of the Second Session of the Eighth Parliament of the Fourth Republic. 

The family of the late former Minister of Finance,  Professor Kwesi Botchwey in the erstwhile National Democratic Congress (NDC) regime has officially informed the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin about his final funeral rites.

Professor Kwesi Botchwey passed away on November 19, 2022, after a short illness at the Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital where he was receiving treatment.

According to the head of the family representatives, the burial service for the former minister will be held on Thursday, 22nd December, 2022 at the Forecourt of State House in Accra.

The representatives, led by Professor Kojo Yankah indicated to the Speaker that the funeral rites are in line with the late Professor’s final burial schedules as he wished.

Speaker Bagbin lauded the late Professor Kwesi Botchwey as a distinguished statesman and an astute lawyer.

Speaker Bagbin eulogized him as a man of humanity and a true Ghanaian, and assured the family representatives of his support.

The late Professor Botchwey was appointed by the late President J.J. Rawlings to assist in stabilising Ghana’s economy at the time, from 1982 to 1995.

Prior to his demise, he was a key member of the council of elders of the National Democratic Congress, having played an integral role in the evolution of the NDC, from its PNDC formative days.

The embattled Finance Minister has absolved himself of the allegations leveled against him by the Minority in their censure motion against him.

Ken Ofori-Atta said the NDC group cannot substantiate their claims against him. 

Contributing to the debate on the report of the ad-hoc committee that probed the censure motion, he said the action has made the country’s democracy stronger. 

However, Mr Ofori-Atta urged the proponents of the motion to be more thorough in subsequent ones. 

He thus asked them to eschew partisan and rather focus on togetherness in making the nation stronger. 

“Mr Speaker, this censure has done some good in advancing our democracy we we would hope that in the future, such censures will have some more thoroughness and will be less politically motivated. 

Mr Speaker, the allegations are what they say and I have very little more to answer after what all the answers I gave at the committee meeting that even if I say I am innocent, they will not believe me and if I ask for proof and truth, they will not be able to answer that. So I have committed no crime,” he said. 

The Minority October 25, filed the censure motion against the minister.

Following that, on November 10, the Speaker of Parliament constituted an 8-member ad-hoc committee to probe the allegations against the minister. 

The committee subsequently presented its report to Parliament on November 25, 2022.

It was then tabled in the order paper for debate and subsequent vote today. 

A six-member delegation from the National Assembly of Namibia on the Select Committee of Budget is in Ghana for a three-day benchmarking visit to Ghana’s Parliament. 

The delegation would engage the House through interaction and also liaise with Members of Parliament (MPs) to exchange ideas, and learn practices of Ghana’s Parliament as well as how Parliament works in Ghana. 

“The delegation is here, among other things, to create a platform of networks to deepen bilateral relations between Ghana’s Parliament and Namibia’s Legislature,” Mr Alban Bagbin, Speaker of Parliament, said on Tuesday in his formal communication on the floor of the House. 

He called for the necessary and related learning assistance to the delegation to make their trip worthwhile. 

“Honourable Members, I urge you to share knowledge, and experiences on the working of the special budget with the delegation. Particularly, focus on the issues of procedures and the independence of Parliament,” he said. 

Mr Bagbin also advised the delegation to take time off to familiarise themselves with Ghana’s nature. 

“Try to network and have follow-up visits, there could be private visits. Is the person-to-person relationship that strengthens bilateral visits. 

“To the delegation, I wish you a fruitful visit, please take time off to use some fresh air outside the parliamentary business, and visit some of Ghana’s tourist sites,” he said. 

INTRODUCTION
Mr. Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin needs to be told to stop talking down on Ghanaians as though he is a village chief and we, his subjects. No humble, learned, erudite, and experienced person will ever seek to silence his critics in a constitutional democracy by telling them that: “In all humility, please note that there is deep thought in whatever I do. Don’t underrate my knowledge, skills, experience, and expertise in Parliamentary practice and procedure.” It is for the public or one’s professional peer group, to determine one’s level of knowledge, skills, experience, and expertise and not for one to subjectively assert them
and trumpet his competences to the world.

Ghana counts more learned, erudite, and respected citizens who have by choice not contested to be members of Parliament, have been and are profoundly knowledgeable in parliamentary practice and procedure than Mr. Bagbin is or can ever be. This country has had the fortune within the Fourth Republic of seeing learned, erudite, highly respected, and self-effacing Speakers of Parliament who had not served even one day as a Members of Parliament. Try as he may, Mr. Bagbin cannot measure up to the eminent, respected, and self-effacing Justice D. F. Annan, the first Speaker of the Fourth Republic for the 1st and 2nd Parliaments even though he is not known to have ever been elected to any Parliament in Ghana. The eminent, respected and equally self-effacing Mrs. Justice Joyce Bamford Addo was another competent
Speaker of Parliament in spite of the fact that she was never an elected Member of Parliament. Both Mr. Justice Annan and Mrs. Justice Bamford Addo exhibited humility and accommodation to criticism from citizens and members of parliament as Speakers of Parliament and never gloated about their abilities.

Coming down to persons who have been nominated from Parliament to be Speakers of Parliament Mr. Doe Adjaho who entered parliament on the same day as Mr. Bagbin was nominated as the Speaker of Parliament for the 6th Parliament under the Fourth Republic and performed more creditably without boasting about knowledge and expertise in Parliamentary practice and procedure. I also never heard the Speaker of Parliament for the 7th Parliament who was also nominated from amongst members of parliament gloat over his deep thinking, knowledge, and expertise in parliamentary practice. The difference between previous Speakers and Mr. Bagbin is that his predecessors were umpires while he has consistently exhibited the qualities of a transactional member of parliament forgetting that he was elevated to the Speakership of Parliament of the 8th Parliament after his retirement as a Member of Parliament.

The conduct of Mr. Bagbin in the processes leading up to the passage of the 2022 Budget Statement and subsequent Appropriation Act, 2022 and the current motion of censure filed by the minority caucus of Parliament against the Minister for Finance, Ken Ofori-Atta vindicate the assertion that Mr. Bagbin behaves more as a transactional Member of Parliament than the Speaker of Parliament as an umpire.

MINORITY’S MOTION OF CENSURE
Mr. Bagbin on 25 October 2022 admitted a motion of censure filed by the Minority over the objection of the Majority Deputy Leader and explained to the whole world that the motion will mature for debate on 10 November 2022 and that the Minister of Finance will have the opportunity during the debate to defend himself. On that occasion he told the House that: “And I had to deeply consider some of these issues that you have raised and came to the conclusion that the motion was properly drafted.”

The Speaker took the view, on the occasion, that the concerned Minister only needed to be
told of the grounds of the motion and “I think exactly that is what has been done by the
sponsors of the motion. And so, I rightfully admitted it.” The Speaker further explained that
he had consulted with and discussed the motion of censure with the Majority and Minority
Leaders before he admitted it and submitted it to the Clerk’s office. His decision to admit the
motion of censure was therefore a considered decision. The Speaker said additionally that
when one reads the Constitution properly, and then the Standing Orders of the House, one
would see that no error had been made. He took the view that the publication of the notice in
the Order Paper was a notice to the world including a notice to the Minister concerned. When
a motion was filed, it was also transmitted to the concerned Minister.

The Minister against whom the motion of censure had been filed, according to the Speaker,
needed to have sufficient information with regard to the allegations that had been made
against him, so that he could prepare adequately, and during the debate he would come and
put up his defence. Mr. Speaker said further that the law talked about the grounds for motions
for censure and the the concerned minister needs to be told the grounds for that motion which
had been done in that case.

The Speaker contended that the notice had been given for seven sitting days of Parliament,
stipulating that:

“Then after that 14-days from the receipt of the motion by the Speaker…and so that is what
we are going by. The Minister definitely, since it is a notice to the public would have
sufficient basis to prepare his defence and the Minister would be given the opportunity to
submit his defence during the debate.”

The Speaker concluded by stating that at the end of the day, the law was clear as to the
support that such a motion should get to constitute a censure – a two-thirds majority vote of
MPs was needed to censure a Minister of State.

MANDATORY CONSTITUTIONAL DEBATE ON THE MOTION OF CENSURE

On 10 November 2022 when the motion came on to be moved and debated, Mr. Bagbin
suddenly and inexplicable made a volte face and referred the motion of censure to an ad hoc
committee of Parliament. This time round Mr. Bagbin is pleading his “…. knowledge, skills,
experience, and expertise in Parliamentary practice and procedure” to silence his critics.

The Speaker in response to criticism over this volte face posted a statement on his Facebook
in which he contended that his decision to refer the motion of censure to the committee was
grounded in logic and law. The Speakers ex post facto rationalization of his volte face
decision were that:
“The Constitution clearly enjoins Parliament to give an opportunity to a Minister to be heard
in defence. The Constitution and the Standing Orders permit the Minister to engage a counsel
to lead him in his defence. On the floor of Parliament during plenary sessions or debates the Counsel cannot be heard because he is not a Member as defined by the Constitution but a stranger. As a stranger he is not allowed by the rules of practice and procedure of Parliament to enter the floor and lead the
Minister. Where and how is the counsel then to lead the Minister in his defence? This can only be at the
level of a committee of Parliament.”

In the Speaker’s view, the constitution empowers him in his capacity to make the decision of referring the matter to the committee.

THE EXAMINATION AND ANALYSIS
When it suited Mr. Bagbin’s transactional nature, on 25 October 2022 he pleaded that: “And I had to deeply consider some of these issues that you have raised and came to the conclusion that the motion was properly drafted.” He had considered the Constitution, the Standing Order of Parliament, and the Majority and Minority Leaders, and determined that: “Then after that 14-days from the receipt of the motion by the Speaker… The Minister definitely, since it is a notice to the public would have sufficient basis to prepare his defence and the Minister would be given the opportunity to submit his defence during the debate.”

Citizens and Members of Parliament expected that the motion of censure would be moved and the
debate commenced on the floor of the House on 10 November 2022 in accordance with the Speakers earlier own logic and understanding of the constitution and law.

Consequently when on 10 November 2022 the Speaker made the Volt face and referred the motion to an ad hoc committee the public and dissatisfied Members of Parliament had every right as citizens of Ghana to exercise their fundamental right to free speech to criticize the double standards exhibited by the same Speaker. That is the essence of the concept of marketplace of ideas in a democracy. It did not warrant any patronage from the Speaker.

The motion of censure against the Minister for Finance was filed pursuant to Article 82 of the 1992 Constitution which is clear and unambiguous in its language and spirit. Article 82(3)
mandatorily requires that: “The motion shall be debated in Parliament within fourteen days after the receipt by the Speaker of the notice for the motion”. The Speaker upon the clear language of article 82(3) has no power to postpone the period within which the motion of censure shall be debated in Parliament. Then Article 82(4) also provides in clear and unambiguous terms that: “(4) A Minister of State in respect of whom a vote of censure is debated under clause (3) of this article is entitled, during the debate, to be heard in his defence.” Within the clear words of the constitution, therefore, the forum at which the Minister of State is entitled to be heard in his defence is in Parliament during the debate within fourteen days after the receipt by the Speaker of the notice of the motion.

The Speaker’s conduct on 25 October 2022 in overruling the Deputy Majority Leader’s objection to the motion of censure is consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution. The Standing Orders of Parliament cannot overrule the clear provisions of the Constitution. The Speak failed or refused to point to an article in the Constitution which gives a Minister subject to a motion of censure the right to be represented by a lawyer of his choice at any stage of the process because there is none. Intelligent citizens have a right to challenge his axioms.

Article 69 of the Constitution deals exclusively with the removal of the President and the Vice-President from office. It is only in the case of the removal of the President that Article 69 (2) requires “a notice in writing signed by not less than one-third of all members of Parliament and stating the conduct or physical or mental capacity of the President be investigated on any of the grounds specified in clause (1) of the article.” The notice required by clause (2) is mandatorily to be “accompanied by a statement in writing setting out in detail the facts, supported by the necessary documents, on which it is claimed that the conduct or the physical or mental capacity of the President be investigated for purposes of his removal
from office.” It should be clear to any casual reader without any experience or expertise in parliamentary practice and procedure that the constitution mandates an investigation in cases of notices for the removal of the President or Vice President on any grounds. This is not the case under Article 82 dealing with Vote of Censure of a Minister of State.

It is also only in the case of the removal of the President from Office that clause 7 of Article 69 mandatorily requires that; “(7) the President shall be entitled during the proceedings of the tribunal or the medical board to be heard in his defence by himself or a lawyer or other expert or person as the case may be, of his own choice.” Parliament is also mandatorily required, “within fourteen days after the date of the findings of the tribunal or medical board, move a resolution whether or not the President shall be removed from office.” There is no requirement for the President to be heard in his defence during the debate in Parliament to remove him from office because of the prior investigation by the tribunal or board mandated by the Constitution at which he had the right of representation by a lawyer, expert, or other person, as the case may be.

The Speaker was, therefore, right to have upheld the motion of censure and overruled the
objection by the Deputy Majority Leader who sought to conflate the provisions of Article 69
with those of Article 82 of the 1992 Constitution by virtue of Order 106 (1) which stipulates
that:
“106(1) The House may pass a resolution to remove the President, the Vice President, Mr.
Speak and Deputy Speakers and a vote of censure on a Minister of State. The House may
consider such motion and come to a decision or refer it to a Committee on a motion made by
any Member.”

The Speaker was right in his ruling on 25 October 2022 because the clear words of Article 82 of the Constitution could not be amended by the provisions of the Standing Orders of Parliament. Secondly, when one reads Order 106 (2) which substantively deals with the removal of the President or Vice President, it specifically enshrined the right of the President to counsel or any expert when it states that: “(f) during prior proceeding in a Committee appointed in that behalf the Parliament shall be entitled to be heard in his defence either by himself, by counsel or by an expert as the case may be;”. This is consistent with Article 69 (7) of the Constitution.

When one reads Order 107 (2) which deals exclusively and substantively with the removal of the Speaker or Deputy Speaker from office, it specifically enshrined the right of the Speaker or Deputy Speaker to counsel or any expert when it states that: “© prior proceedings shall be taken in a Committee appointed in that behalf. The Speaker or the Deputy Speaker shall be heard in his defence either by himself or a representative.” The reason for this provision is that Article 95(2) which deals with the removal from office of a Speaker or Deputy Speaker just states that he vacates his office – “(d) if he is removed by a resolution of Parliament

But Order 108 which also deals exclusively and substantively with only a vote of censure of a
Minister of State makes no reference to any committee or a right to be heard in his defence
either by counsel or any expert or a representative. It states simply and clearly in Order 108
that: “(c) during the proceeding on the motion the Minister shall be entitled to be heard in his
defence.” This is consistent with Article 82 of the 1992 Constitution on motions of censure or
vote of censure of a Minster of State.

Consequently when the Speaker on 10 November 2022 suddenly and without any reasonable explanation requested for the motion of censure to be moved for him to refer it to an ad hoc committee of Parliament, patriotic citizens were entitled to question the motives for the Speaker’s volte face after his earlier deep consideration and reasoning upon which he overruled the Deputy Majority Leader’s objection after he had “had to deeply consider some of these issues that you have raised and came to the conclusion that the motion was properly drafted.” There was also no explanation by the Speaker for his authority to violate the mandatory constitutional requirement that “the motion of censure to be debated within fourteen days of its receipt of the notice of motion” and the minister “in respect of whom a
vote of censure is debated to be entitled, during the debate, to be heard in his defence.”

It is pertinent and imperative to ask at this stage of our examination and analysis the question, what a motion of censure is, and how different it is from a resolution to mandatorily remove the President, and Speaker of Parliament from office. A motion of censure has been described in the following terms: “Censure motions are a type of motion that seek to criticise the behaviour of the Government, in relation to a single minister, in relation to a specific Government policy, or to express explicitly no confidence in the Government.” Censure motions are political processes as distinct from an investigatory or a judicial adversarial adjudication process of finding guilty or culpability in accordance with due process of law.
Article 82 of the 1992 Constitution followed the common law parliamentary tradition of motions of censure where the grounds of the motion as they affect a single minister are debated in parliament and the minister being heard in his defence on the floor of the House.

This explains the further reason why one cannot conflate the processes under Article 69 for the removal of the President or Vice-President with Article 82 of the Constitution on vote of censure of a Minister of State. Article 69(13) states that: “The President shall cease to hold office as President on the date Parliament decides that he be removed from office”. Under Article 82 (5) the Minister against whom a vote of censure is passed unless he resigns his office, may have his appointment revoked by the President. Because a ministerial vote of censure is a purely political act, the constitution does not injunct the Minister to resign or the President to revoke his appointment. Indeed the President may refuse to accept the Minister’s resignation letter without any constitutional consequences.

Citizens are entitled to question the contradictory decisions of the Speaker made within fourteen days of each other, particularly when the Speaker’s decision of 10 November 2022 sought to conflate the provisions of Article 69 with Article 82 of the Constitution and to pick and choose reasons based on political expediency, instead of logic and law. The Speaker had no constitutional authority to have transposed the provisions of Article 69 making specific provisions for the removal of the President into Article 82 specifically dealing with the procedure for a vote of censure of a Minister of State. The Speaker’s so called knowledge or expertise in parliamentary procedure is no defence to a patently contradictory interpretation as though he was an ancient chancellor of the ancient court of equity whose decision changed with the chancellor’s foot.

As citizens of Ghana we are entitled to make meaning from the conduct of public officers who are appointed to serve citizens impartially as an umpire, and to protect the national interest without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. The conduct of the Speaker during the hearing of the 2022 Budget Statement, in particular the manner in which he returned from Dubai in March 2022 after a meeting with the President there the same month to preside over the passage of the E-Levy into law on Tuesday 29 March 2022 gives justification for citizens to perceive the Speaker, rightly or wrongly, as being transactional by nature instead of acting as a trusted umpire.

In communication theory the sender of a message, verbal or non-verbal or both, is responsible for the meaning significant others make from his transmitted message. In making meaning out of those transmitted messages, significant others are entitled to bring to bear on those messages their bank of knowledge and experience of the sender of the message. The Speaker transmitted to citizens messages by his ruling on the Deputy Majority Leader’s objection to the motion of censure on 25 October 2022. The same Speaker has transmitted contradictory messages on the day of the mandatory constitutional debate of the motion of censure which was to have taken place on 10 November 2022. The fourteen days mandated by Article 82 of the 1992 Constitution for the debate on the vote of censure has long past by reason of the Speaker’s ruling on 10 November 2022. Constitutionally there is no motion of censure before Parliament for any debate based on the original notice of motion file on 25 October 2022 in
accordance with Article 82 of the 1992 Constitution.

The spectacle of the television show and entertainment to divert the public’s attention from its economic suffering that followed the Speaker’s unconstitutional subterfuge of referring the debate on the vote of censure to investigation by an ad hoc committee cannot ratify his illogical and unlawful decision or ruling. The report of the Speaker’s ad hoc committee is inconsistent with and in contravention of the provisions of Article 82 of the Constitution and Order 108 of the Standing Orders of Parliament. Unlike Article 69 dealing with the removal of the President or Vice President from office which states that: “(10) Parliament shall, within fourteen days after the date of the findings of the tribunal or medical board, move a resolution whether or not the President shall be removed from office”, Article 82 mandates that: “(3)
The motion shall be debated in Parliament within fourteen days after the receipt by the Speaker of the notice of the motion.” The Speaker was not given any discretion under Article 82 of the 1992 Constitution or the specific provision of Order 108 of the Standing Orders of Parliament to assume the power to refer the motion of censure after it was moved and seconded for the debate within the fourteen days after its receipt by the Speaker to any ad hoc committee.

The Speaker unconstitutionally set up an ad hoc committee to investigate the grounds of the motion of censure and to report to Parliament as though the President or Vice-President was being removed from office under Article 69 (5) and (7) of the Constitution. The Minister of Finance has already appeared in a public spectacle of entertainment showed on television before the ad hoc committee of parliament with lawyers to defend himself. We are now left to see whether the Speaker is going to give the Minister for Finance a second bite at the cherry when the report is tabled on the floor of Parliament for debate when even Article 69 (10) to (12) do not give the President or Vice President the right to be heard in their defence after the findings of the tribunal set up by the Chief Justice to investigate the grounds of the removal from office.

OBSERVATIONS

Pursuant to the motion of censure filed by Alhaji Muntaka Mubarak, the Chief Whip of the minority caucus, the Minister For Finance had notice of the motion and was constitutionally bound to appear in Parliament on 10 November 2022 for the debate on the censure motion and vote of censure. The Minister for Finance, Ken Ofori-Atta, never appeared in Parliament on 10 November 2022. He is reputed to have been abroad on that day, instead of respecting the Constitution and laws of Ghana by his presence in Parliament. The Speaker knew that the subject of the motion of censure was absent from Parliament in spite of the mandatory injunction of Article 82 of the Constitution but glossed over the Minister’s absence and proceeded to have the motion of censure moved and seconded. The Speaker then followed this with his unconstitutional referral of same to an unconstitutional ad hoc committee of Parliament for Investigation.

Was the Speaker prevailed upon by the Government to make the second contradictory ruling he made on 10 November 2022 and what was the consideration for the volte face? Tongues are wagging in that direction from within the minority caucus in Parliament when the Government is bent on pushing an austerity budget down the throats of citizens who are already burdened with suffering and betrayal by their elected Government.

In such circumstances a Speaker with a transactional leadership style whose medical condition is opaquely held in confidence by this Government, poses a danger to the concept of the Speaker as impartial and fair umpire in Parliament. Without transparent knowledge by the public about the Speaker’s medical condition which cannot be treated in Ghana, the Speaker may himself be under silent in camera threats of a motion for his removal from office on medical grounds which may affect his impartiality as an umpire. The late eminent Speaker of Parliament, Mr. Justice D. F. Annan prevented such a situation when he developed a malignant abdominal condition necessitating surgery in the United Kingdom by making it a matter of public knowledge before it manifested in his appearance later. He lived for several long years thereafter and used to joke about his surgery and the dos and don’ts imposed on him as a result even long after he ceased to be the Speaker of Parliament. That was a display of probity, transparency, and accountability in governance which Mr. Bagbin needs to emulate as a true son of the June 4 and 31 December Revolutions who wishes to avoid unfavourable public perceptions or speculations about his conduct as Speaker under the 8 th Parliament of the Fourth Republican Constitution.

CONCLUSIONS

The conduct of the Speaker during the hearing of the 2022 Budget Statement, in particular the manner in which he returned from Dubai after a meeting with the President there in March 2022 to preside over the passage of the E-Levy gives justification for citizens to perceive the Speaker rightly or wrongly as being transactional by nature instead of acting as a trusted umpire. In communication theory the sender of a verbal or non-verbal message or both is responsible for the meaning significant others make from his message with their bank of knowledge accumulated over time about the transmitter of the message.

The Speaker transmitted to citizens messages by his ruling on the Deputy Majority Leader’s objection to the motion of censure on 25 October 2022. The same Speaker has transmitted contradictory messages on the day of the mandatory constitutional debate of the motion of censure which was to have taken place on 10 November 2022. The fourteen days mandated by Article 82 of the 1992 Constitution for the debate on the vote of censure has long past by reason of the Speaker’s ruling on 10 November 2022. Constitutionally, therefore, there is no motion of censure before Parliament for any debate based on the original notice of motion filed on 25 October 2022.

By the subterfuge adopted by the Speaker in unconstitutionally conflating the provisions of Article 69 with Article 82 of the 1992 Constitution, picking and choosing according to the illogicalities of his whims and caprices, he succeeded in dragging the debate on the vote of censure into the presentation of the 2023 Budget Statement and the debate on the motion for the approval of the budget statement. This is a typical modus operandi of transactional leadership and not of impartial umpires. Citizens have a right to assume, in the absence of any cogent and credible explanation supported by the Constitution that the Speaker is repeating the modus operandi with which he handled the 2022 Budget Statement with bombastic rulings only to pull wool over our eyes but eventually presided over the passage of the E-Levy after feeding on the public purse in Dubai treating himself at public expense without any medical board having been constituted which recommended his treatment abroad as required by law. That puts the Speaker in the debt of, and in vulnerability to the Government which affects his impartiality as an umpire.

Citizens’ experience with how the Speaker prevaricated in his handling of the 2022 Budget Statement is precedent for patriotic citizens to be alert and to question whatever transactional leadership traits becomes apparent in the manner the Speaker appears to handle the motion of censure and in particular the processes enjoined under Article 82 of the Constitution for the vote of censure as examined and analyzed hereinbefore. The foregoing examination and analysis of the contradictory conduct of the Speaker in his rulings on 25 October 2022 and 10 November 2022 has demonstrated the need for patriotic citizens to remain ever vigilant in a split parliament in which the Speaker exhibits traits of being transactional and arrogates to himself powers and authorities not conferred upon him by the Constitution and/or Standing Orders of Parliament.

The occurrence of the events in relation to the motion of censure which has been examined and analyzed shows that the Speaker acted unconstitutionally by moving the debate and vote of censure from 10 November 2022 into the period for the presentation, debate, and approval of the 2023 Budget Statement. This conduct of the Speaker underscores the urgency with which patriotic citizens must be ever watchful of every step and pronouncement by the Speaker of Parliament. This is the first Speaker of Parliament under the Fourth Republican Constitution who thinks his words on the Constitution and the procedure and practice of Parliament is gospel and so infallible that citizens must swallow them line, hook, and sinker as a matter of faith. I agree with the Speaker that the minority motion will eventually fail, but
the processes towards that failure must be fair and transparent. It must not be orchestrated.

The Speaker needs to come out with cogent and credible arguments and reasons for changing positions on the debate for the vote of censure than playing god and asking reasonable citizens to take his supposed personal deep thinking as binding authority on the objective and considered reasoning of his fellow citizens. It is of the utmost importance for all patriots not to allow what happened during the 2022 Budget season last year, to repeat itself on how the motion of censure has been handled by the Speaker so far, and how he may handle the 2023 Budget process during this period of economic hardships. Ghana First!

Martin A. B. K. Amidu