The Minority Leader, Dr Cassiel Ato Forson, has articulated his concerns regarding the recent request to recall Parliament, deeming it ill-timed and likely to impose an unnecessary financial burden on the Ghanaian taxpayer.
Dr Forson has proposed that the leadership of Parliament convene immediately following the elections on December 7 to address the persistent stalemate within the House. He has urged the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, to decline the request put forth by the Majority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, to reconvene Parliament.
He emphasised that this represents the fourth occasion in 2024 in which the New Patriotic Party (NPP) parliamentary caucus has sought an urgent recall of Parliament. Dr Forson pointed out that many items classified as “urgent government business” were ultimately left unattended during the previous urgent meetings.
Parliament adjourned indefinitely on November 7 after Speaker Bagbin suspended proceedings due to the absence of a prepared agenda from the Business Committee. Following this, Alexander Afenyo-Markin urged Speaker Bagbin to exercise his constitutional authority in accordance with Standing Orders 57(3) and 58(4) to reconvene Parliament in order to address the outstanding business.
In a memorandum addressed to the Speaker, Dr. Ato Forson, representing Ajumako-Enyan-Essiam, noted: “Rt. Hon. Speaker, the petitioner’s request is predicated on an appeal for you to exercise your discretion to recall Parliament for what they have described as ‘high-priority’ government business. The petitioner has outlined various issues for consideration.
“However, we respectfully submit that you are not obliged to recall Parliament based on this request. Furthermore, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any emergency or urgent government business that warrants such a recall, particularly with only eleven days remaining until the critical 2024 General Election.”
He further stated, “In less than two weeks, Ghanaians will participate in elections to select a President and members of Parliament. Both the electorate and candidates deserve this time to engage in meaningful discourse, thereby enabling the citizens of Ghana to make informed choices.
“Rt. Hon. Speaker, the proposed recall is ill-timed and represents an unnecessary expense for the Ghanaian taxpayer. We, therefore, respectfully urge you to reject this request in the interest of the nation.
“With merely eleven days to the elections, a recall of the House at this juncture could further aggravate the unresolved stalemate that has recently emerged. It is imperative that we avoid any actions that may disrupt the peace and stability of our democracy. Instead, our focus should be directed towards ensuring the conduct of credible, peaceful, free, and fair elections at this critical time.
“I propose that a leadership meeting be convened following the elections to address the stalemate and to determine a suitable date for reconvening the House to consider any outstanding government business.”
On November 12, the Supreme Court annulled the Speaker’s ruling that declared four parliamentary seats vacant. In a decision reflecting a 5-2 majority, the Court upheld the suit filed by Alexander Afenyo-Markin. The two dissenting justices contended that the Court lacked jurisdiction over this matter.
This legal suit created a stalemate in Parliament, as members of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) asserted a Majority position based on the Speaker’s ruling. Consequently, Members of Parliament from the New Patriotic Party (NPP) chose to boycott proceedings in the House.
The Supreme Court ruled that a parliamentary seat may only be vacated if a lawmaker switches political parties. Furthermore, the Court determined that the ruling issued by Speaker Alban Bagbin regarding vacant seats cannot be enforced during the current parliamentary session. It found it unlawful for Mr. Bagbin to declare that lawmakers had vacated their seats solely on the basis that they had filed to contest as independent candidates in the 2024 elections.
The Court articulated that the only defensible interpretation of Article 97(1)(g) and (h) is that a Member of Parliament’s seat shall be vacated only if the member departs from their elected party to join another party within Parliament while seeking to retain membership as part of the new party.
Justice Kwaku Adibu Asiedu, in his concurrent opinion, concluded that a consistent theme exists throughout the provisions in Article 97(1)(b) to (h). This theme establishes a condition precedent that must be fulfilled for a Member of Parliament to be deemed to have forfeited their seat. Specifically, the act in question must affect the member’s status in the current parliamentary session; actions that impact a future session do not warrant consideration.
In Justice Asiedu’s assessment, it is both incorrect and unconstitutional for the Speaker to assert that the Members of Parliament in question have vacated their seats solely because they filed nominations to contest in the forthcoming general elections on tickets different from those on which they were originally elected. Consequently, he supported the relief sought in Afenyo-Markin’s writ.
With the Supreme Court’s ruling, Parliament is anticipated to be recalled, and the NDC Members of Parliament will revert to their original Minority status.On November 12, the Supreme Court annulled the Speaker’s ruling that declared four parliamentary seats vacant. In a decision reflecting a 5-2 majority, the Court upheld the suit filed by Alexander Afenyo-Markin. The two dissenting justices contended that the Court lacked jurisdiction over this matter.
This legal suit created a stalemate in Parliament, as members of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) asserted a Majority position based on the Speaker’s ruling. Consequently, Members of Parliament from the New Patriotic Party (NPP) chose to boycott proceedings in the House.
The Supreme Court ruled that a parliamentary seat may only be vacated if a lawmaker switches political parties. Furthermore, the Court determined that the ruling issued by Speaker Alban Bagbin regarding vacant seats cannot be enforced during the current parliamentary session. It found it unlawful for Mr. Bagbin to declare that lawmakers had vacated their seats solely on the basis that they had filed to contest as independent candidates in the 2024 elections.
The Court articulated that the only defensible interpretation of Article 97(1)(g) and (h) is that a Member of Parliament’s seat shall be vacated only if the member departs from their elected party to join another party within Parliament while seeking to retain membership as part of the new party.
Justice Kwaku Adibu Asiedu, in his concurrent opinion, concluded that a consistent theme exists throughout the provisions in Article 97(1)(b) to (h). This theme establishes a condition precedent that must be fulfilled for a Member of Parliament to be deemed to have forfeited their seat. Specifically, the act in question must affect the member’s status in the current parliamentary session; actions that impact a future session do not warrant consideration.
In Justice Asiedu’s assessment, it is both incorrect and unconstitutional for the Speaker to assert that the Members of Parliament in question have vacated their seats solely because they filed nominations to contest in the forthcoming general elections on tickets different from those on which they were originally elected. Consequently, he supported the relief sought in Afenyo-Markin’s writ.
With the Supreme Court’s ruling, Parliament is anticipated to be recalled, and the NDC Members of Parliament will revert to their original Minority status.
