Bagbin to meet Ablakwa over his resignation from Appointments Committee

Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin will be meeting North Tongu Lawmaker Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa over the latter’s resignation from the Appointments Committee of Parliament, TV3’s Parliamentary Correspondent Komla Klutse, has reported on Wednesday, March 31.

Mr Ablakwa has said after days of careful reflection, he has decided to resign from the Appointments Committee of Parliament.

Komla Klutse reported that the former Deputy Education Minister said he will not rescind his decision.

Mr Ablakwa said in a letter dated March 30 and addressed to the Speaker, Alban Kingsford Bagbin that “after days of careful reflection and thoughtful considerations.

“I shall like to state that the reasons for this difficult decision is both personal and on principle.”

This comes just days after the Appointments Committee members especially the National Democratic Congress (NDC) lawmakers received flak from their own party supporters and other members of the public for approving some of President Akufo-Addo’s ministers who they believed should have been rejected by the Committee.

On Monday, the Committee by a consensus approved Finance Minister Ken Ofori Atta.

Following the approval, a Professor at the University of Ghana Ransford Yaw Gyampo demanded an explanation into the “unanimous” approval despite the spirited bastardization of Mr Ofori-Atta by the NDC and its parliamentary representatives.

He wrote on Wednesday, March 31 that the Minority in Parliament made all to believe that Mr Ofori-Atta was “the most greedy, insensitive, corrupt and incompetent Minister in the previous administration”.

Nonetheless, for him to receive such overwhelming backing suggests that the criticisms could only be unfounded.

“Was the Minister that good in his first term to warrant such a unanimous approval? What was the basis of the critical stance against some of his policies by the minority group? Was it just propaganda against him or it was sheer ignorance on their part? Were they criticizing the man, just to look good in the sight of the populace? Does it mean their criticisms weren’t well-founded? What?” he asks in a write-up.