It is now in the hands of the Supreme Court to interpret article 97(1)(g)&(h), the article citated states “if he leaves the Party of which he was a Member at the time of his Election to Parliament to join another party or seeks to remain in Parliament as an Independent Member” the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is spelt out in article 130 (1)(a) “all matters relating to the enforcement or Interpretation of this Constitution” falls within the purview of the Supreme Court. So now that the former Majority Leader has triggered article 2(1) of the 1992 at the Apex Court of the land, let us wait for the Judiciary to exercise its Constitutional mandated function.
The affected MPs are Cynthia Morrison (Agona West), Kwadwo Asante (Suhum), Andrew Asiamah (Fomena), and Peter Kwakye Ackah (Amenfi Central).
It is interesting to note that, this provision in article 97 (1)(g) &(h) supra would raise legal debates like;
i) Whether or not those constituents that have been affected do not need representation in Parliament.
ii) Whether or not those Members of Parliament (MPs) can hold themselves as former members for the 8th Parliament of the Fourth (4th) Republic and enjoy emoluments or ex-gratia since they did not finish serving their term of office.
iii) Whether or not MPs who crossed carpet from one constituency to another fall under article 97(1)(g) &(h), as in the case of Nana Ama Dokua Asiamah-Adjei from Akronpong constituency to Okai Koi North.
iv) Whether or not if one side of Parliament would boycott the rest of Parliamentary sittings until the 2024 General Elections and what would be its implication on the on Nation.
The 1992 Constitution of Ghana is unambiguous on article 99 which talks about the determination of Membership of MPs as shall be determined by the High Court.
The article 99(1) says that “the High Court shall have Jurisdiction to hear and determine any question whether (a) a person has been validly elected as an MP or the seat has become vacant;” the Speaker of Parliament, regardless of his powers and expertise, has no Constitutional rights to declare a seat(s) vacant.
This power is reserved solely for the Judiciary as stated in chapter eleven (11) of the Constitution.
This ruling from the Speaker seeks to bring in a deficit in Parliament because article 112(6) does not provides room for by-elections “notwithstanding clause (5) of this article, a by-election shall not be held within three months before the holding of a general election”.
Declaring those seats vacant so close to an election is going to create tension and problems in Parliamentary proceedings.
Respectfully, I am not here to prejudice the outcome of the court in this matter.
However, my understanding of article 97(1) stated supra is that those MPs still have rights to represent their people in the 8th Parliament of the 4th Republic with their current political parties, but would not do same with previous political parties in the next parliament.
Everyone needs a representation in Parliament so that his or her voice would be heard. “…urged Parliaments to ensure that no one is left behind in any aspect of their national life…this means all persons must be equally represented, and given equal opportunities” (Bagbin, 14-10-2022).
It is worthy to note that, the basic function of Parliament is law making and does not have right to its interpretation.
Checks and Balances is a mechanism for ensuring that each Arm of Government supervises and monitors one another against possible abuses of power as it was indicated by Montesquieu, a philosopher who propounded the theory of Separation of Powers. In as much as the Supreme Court is not bound by its own previous decisions, so as Speakers are not bound by previous decisions made by their Predecessors.
Precedence they say it is good but two wrongs do not make a right.
Disclaimer: I do not have a political motive, it is purely for academic purpose.
By NKMA Tumanyi
