Rt Hon. Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, the Speaker of Ghana's Parliament made a crucial ruling forcing the majority side of the house, at the time of the ruling, to walk out of the house. They are not happy because the ruling has changed their status from being the majority side of the house to the now minority forcing them to walk out.

If you sow evil, you reap evil. Exactly four years ago, a similar issue was on our hands. The Fomena Member of Parliament, Hon. Andrew Asiamah Amoako was not happy about the ill treatment meted out to him by party executives in the NPP primaries that led to this Parliament. He opted to go independent and his seat was declared vacant by the then Speaker, Prof. Aaron Mike Oquaye.

The NPP who was enjoying a clear majority then was not perturbed by Oquaye's ruling. They celebrated it and President Nana Addo proceeded to add that he cannot work with any independent candidate. They were forced to eat the humble pie after the 2020 elections by begging and proceeding to elevate the Fomena Independent MP to the Second Deputy Speaker position.

The current nomenclature of the Parliament of Ghana has made the new minority jittery in the life of this parliament. We have seen them airlift and pushed sick and dying members to parliament so they can have their way. The numbers are not just there so they cannot support the sacking of any member on their side that decides to change the ticket that brought him/her to parliament.

It is not surprising that the Oquaye ruling that was celebrated has now been declared unlawful and lacks proper reasoning. It was even more chocking when Oquaye himself dismisses his ruling as if it was not his.

The effect of Speaker Bagbin's ruling is that the new minority side has 135 members and the new majority side has 136 members. This is historic for our democracy because we have never experienced a sitting president with a parliamentary minority in Ghana.

Some lawyers and governance experts have argued that the ruling is wrong while others feel it is okey. Many who disagreed with Oquaye's ruling disagreed with this one as well but which side is right?

I am not a lawyer or a judge so I cannot say my position is correct but I am convinced that both Oquaye and Bagbin's rulings are correct. The power to declare seats vacant is sourced from article 97(1) of the 1992 Constitution and I believe non of the sub-clauses in article 97(1) make reference to any future parliament.

For instance, 97(1)(a) provides that "A member of Parliament shall vacate his seat in Parliament upon a dissolution of Parliament. This is clear for all of us and examples abound for us to refer to. All the members of the current parliament cannot transition to the new parliament we will be swearing in come 7th January, 2024. There are no known examples of parliament dissolving before its tenure since 1992 and so no need to waist time.

Clause (1)(b) also provides; "A member of Parliament shall vacate his seat in Parliament if he is elected as Speaker of Parliament." A clear example is Speaker Edward Korbly Doe Adjaho who vacated his seat as Akatsi South MP.

Again, all the sub-clauses from 'a to h' were connected with the word "Or." For me, connecting all the clauses with the word "Or" will sound like there is no reference to any future parliament but the current one at hand.

I am not saying my position is superior so I can be better educated. But let us also think this way? How will you feel if your spouse declares he/she is leaving the marriage tomorrow? Will you continue to share your secrets with him/her? Clearly trust will be broken and anyone affected will feel uncomfortable dealing. The two NPP MPs, Hon. Oboafo Kwadjo Asante and Hon. Cynthia Mamle Morrison who are now going to contest as Independent Candidates will not support any business of the government if they feel that approving such business will negatively affect their chances of winning their seats as independent candidates. The NDC MP, Hon. Peter Yaw Kwakye-Ackah will not also support the NDC in any bid if it will negatively affect his chances. So why keep them if they cannot show substantial fidelity?

What the four MPs have done is also a betrayal of their constituents. The candidates presented themselves in certain colours (NPP, NDC, Independent) convincing the majority of their constituents to subscribe to and elected them. If they go to parliament and subsequently pushing away the colours that gave them majority votes, then it is largely possible they have lost the majority and so have to go. In fact, it is a breach of the contract they had with their constituents.

That said, I believe Hon. Andrew Asiamah Amoako, Independent MP, who is now seeking to be in parliament as a NPP candidate should have been allowed to be. This is because he made a choice to do business with the ruling NPP and so his presence in parliament though appearing as independent can be said as NPP in substance.

Clearly, Hon. Asiamah as an NPP Candidate can be rightly seen as a square peg in a square hole. He has been doing business with the NPP and so representing the NPP as a Parliamentary Candidate will not change his mind in any way against the NPP government. This is the view I hold but I strongly believe that the law does not support this.

The Oquaye and Bagbin's rulings may be wrong but these two wrongs make a right. The NPP cannot be allowed to lick the palm and back of the hand at the same time. You sow evil, you reap evil. If the sacking of Hon. Andrew Asiamah Amoako in 2020 is righ then the sacking of Hon. Andrew Asiamah Amoako and others in 2024 is again right and must not be declared as wrong because a certain unholy convenience must always be satisfied.

By Rt Hon. Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, the Speaker of Ghana's Parliament made a crucial ruling forcing the majority side of the house, at the time of the ruling, to walk out of the house. They are not happy because the ruling has changed their status from being the majority side of the house to the now minority forcing them to walk out.

If you sow evil, you reap evil. Exactly four years ago, a similar issue was on our hands. The Fomena Member of Parliament, Hon. Andrew Asiamah Amoako was not happy about the ill treatment meted out to him by party executives in the NPP primaries that led to this Parliament. He opted to go independent and his seat was declared vacant by the then Speaker, Prof. Aaron Mike Oquaye.

The NPP who was enjoying a clear majority then was not perturbed by Oquaye's ruling. They celebrated it and President Nana Addo proceeded to add that he cannot work with any independent candidate. They were forced to eat the humble pie after the 2020 elections by begging and proceeding to elevate the Fomena Independent MP to the Second Deputy Speaker position.

The current nomenclature of the Parliament of Ghana has made the new minority jittery in the life of this parliament. We have seen them airlift and pushed sick and dying members to parliament so they can have their way. The numbers are not just there so they cannot support the sacking of any member on their side that decides to change the ticket that brought him/her to parliament.

It is not surprising that the Oquaye ruling that was celebrated has now been declared unlawful and lacks proper reasoning. It was even more chocking when Oquaye himself dismisses his ruling as if it was not his.

The effect of Speaker Bagbin's ruling is that the new minority side has 135 members and the new majority side has 136 members. This is historic for our democracy because we have never experienced a sitting president with a parliamentary minority in Ghana.

Some lawyers and governance experts have argued that the ruling is wrong while others feel it is okey. Many who disagreed with Oquaye's ruling disagreed with this one as well but which side is right?

I am not a lawyer or a judge so I cannot say my position is correct but I am convinced that both Oquaye and Bagbin's rulings are correct. The power to declare seats vacant is sourced from article 97(1) of the 1992 Constitution and I believe non of the sub-clauses in article 97(1) make reference to any future parliament.

For instance, 97(1)(a) provides that "A member of Parliament shall vacate his seat in Parliament upon a dissolution of Parliament. This is clear for all of us and examples abound for us to refer to. All the members of the current parliament cannot transition to the new parliament we will be swearing in come 7th January, 2024. There are no known examples of parliament dissolving before its tenure since 1992 and so no need to waist time.

Clause (1)(b) also provides; "A member of Parliament shall vacate his seat in Parliament if he is elected as Speaker of Parliament." A clear example is Speaker Edward Korbly Doe Adjaho who vacated his seat as Akatsi South MP.

Again, all the sub-clauses from 'a to h' were connected with the word "Or." For me, connecting all the clauses with the word "Or" will sound like there is no reference to any future parliament but the current one at hand.

I am not saying my position is superior so I can be better educated. But let us also think this way? How will you feel if your spouse declares he/she is leaving the marriage tomorrow? Will you continue to share your secrets with him/her? Clearly trust will be broken and anyone affected will feel uncomfortable dealing. The two NPP MPs, Hon. Oboafo Kwadjo Asante and Hon. Cynthia Mamle Morrison who are now going to contest as Independent Candidates will not support any business of the government if they feel that approving such business will negatively affect their chances of winning their seats as independent candidates. The NDC MP, Hon. Peter Yaw Kwakye-Ackah will not also support the NDC in any bid if it will negatively affect his chances. So why keep them if they cannot show substantial fidelity?

What the four MPs have done is also a betrayal of their constituents. The candidates presented themselves in certain colours (NPP, NDC, Independent) convincing the majority of their constituents to subscribe to and elected them. If they go to parliament and subsequently pushing away the colours that gave them majority votes, then it is largely possible they have lost the majority and so have to go. In fact, it is a breach of the contract they had with their constituents.

That said, I believe Hon. Andrew Asiamah Amoako, Independent MP, who is now seeking to be in parliament as a NPP candidate should have been allowed to be. This is because he made a choice to do business with the ruling NPP and so his presence in parliament though appearing as independent can be said as NPP in substance.

Clearly, Hon. Asiamah as an NPP Candidate can be rightly seen as a square peg in a square hole. He has been doing business with the NPP and so representing the NPP as a Parliamentary Candidate will not change his mind in any way against the NPP government. This is the view I hold but I strongly believe that the law does not support this.

The Oquaye and Bagbin's rulings may be wrong but these two wrongs make a right. The NPP cannot be allowed to lick the palm and back of the hand at the same time. You sow evil, you reap evil. If the sacking of Hon. Andrew Asiamah Amoako in 2020 is righ then the sacking of Hon. Andrew Asiamah Amoako and others in 2024 is again right and must not be declared as wrong because a certain unholy convenience must always be satisfied.

By Taluta Gbanha Mahama

mymahamataluta@gmail.com

Sissala West District