'I am not satisfied with what happened at Privileges Committee' - Bagbin explains

Alban Bagbin, Speaker of Parliament, has been explaining why he decided that the plenary should decide on the Privileges Committee report on why some three NPP MPs were absent from Parliament for more than 15 sittings. According to him, the Committee did not properly investigate the claims some of the absentee MPs gave and decided to take their excuses as the truth. He said when an MP appears before the committee and claims that he or she took permission from the Speaker or was advised by a doctor, the committee needed to go beyond the claims and ascertain the truth. He noted that he decided to investigate the committee after reading the report presented to him and observed that there was a split among the members. Bagbin explained to the Parliamentary Press Corps on Friday, October 28, that upon his findings from the members of the committee, he decided that the whole House needed to debate the report. He vowed that even if it will take the heavens coming down, the entire membership of the House has to debate it and together provide a proper decision on the Privileges Committee's report. "Representation is so key to democratic governance to leave it to the subjective decision of any group of individuals. After reading the PC report, I went behind the report and do investigations as to what happened at the committee meetings and I am not satisfied with what happened there. "There is no way this can go without the whole House being given the opportunity to debate. The heavens can come down but that one the whole House has to debate it and come out with a decision. "It is not the Speaker that has to declare the vacation of the seat. When they say something is automatic, it is somebody that must make it automatic. To start with, the attention must be drawn that the person has been absent for 15 or more sittings, there must be some search to know that the Speaker has not given written permission," Alban Bagbin justified his decision of Wednesday, October 26. He continued: These are questions of facts which cannot be established by just an individual. The Speaker, every day I give permission and there is no way that with this heavy load on me, I will be able to say that I didn’t give this one permission or I gave this person ten or that person twenty, no! "You must get a team to research and get all the permissions and go through; don’t forget they are humans and can be subjected to influences; even though I’m still investigating it and I got reports from Civil Society Organisations, CSOs, that are focused on Parliament and they have gone to the extent of using the votes and proceedings – which is the basis for attendance… "I realised in the committee’s report, there was a split and the reason for the split is that they did not probe further…in that report, if you are telling me once the committee decides that the reasons given are reasonable and parliament must be bound and parliament cannot go into it and automatically the law kicks in, I will beg to defer from that. "And that is why the whole house, looking at the sanctity of the right of representation would have to take a decision and I am very clear in my mind about this." Background On Wednesday, October 26, Speaker Alban Bagbin ruled that the Privileges Committee’s report on the fate of Dome-Kwabenya legislator, Sarah Adwoa Safo, was not final. The Committee in its report on the absenteeism of Adwoa Safo recommended that her seat be declared vacant for failing to provide an explanation for her absence. But delivering the much-anticipated ruling, the Speaker noted that the report of the Committee must be tabled before the whole House for a decision to be made. “It is for the House that will go through it because the mandate given to an MP, representation is so crucial that it cannot be left to the subjective view of any person or group of people but the whole house”, Speaker Bagbin said on the floor on Wednesday. However, this did not go down well with the Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu. The Majority Leader who doubles as the Suame MP said the ruling is “unfortunate.” “I am expressing my discomfort with this unfortunate ruling that you have made. I totally disagree. I think it doesn’t sit with the Constitution and with your own earlier statements that you made in this House relating to those same things. Very inconsistent,” he retorted. This reaction caused another clash between himself and the Speaker who did not take the comment lightly. Alban Bagbin demanded a retraction to which the MP reluctantly obliged. In a subsequent press conference, the Suame MP added that “the Speaker is totally wrong in his understanding of the Constitution”. He said the Speaker’s ruling flouts Article 97 of the law which the Speaker quoted as the justification for his ruling. PEN/SARA

Alban Bagbin, Speaker of Parliament, has been explaining why he decided that the plenary should decide on the Privileges Committee report on why some three NPP MPs were absent from Parliament for more than 15 sittings. According to him, the Committee did not properly investigate the claims some of the absentee MPs gave and decided to take their excuses as the truth. He said when an MP appears before the committee and claims that he or she took permission from the Speaker or was advised by a doctor, the committee needed to go beyond the claims and ascertain the truth. He noted that he decided to investigate the committee after reading the report presented to him and observed that there was a split among the members. Bagbin explained to the Parliamentary Press Corps on Friday, October 28, that upon his findings from the members of the committee, he decided that the whole House needed to debate the report. He vowed that even if it will take the heavens coming down, the entire membership of the House has to debate it and together provide a proper decision on the Privileges Committee's report. "Representation is so key to democratic governance to leave it to the subjective decision of any group of individuals. After reading the PC report, I went behind the report and do investigations as to what happened at the committee meetings and I am not satisfied with what happened there. "There is no way this can go without the whole House being given the opportunity to debate. The heavens can come down but that one the whole House has to debate it and come out with a decision. "It is not the Speaker that has to declare the vacation of the seat. When they say something is automatic, it is somebody that must make it automatic. To start with, the attention must be drawn that the person has been absent for 15 or more sittings, there must be some search to know that the Speaker has not given written permission," Alban Bagbin justified his decision of Wednesday, October 26. He continued: These are questions of facts which cannot be established by just an individual. The Speaker, every day I give permission and there is no way that with this heavy load on me, I will be able to say that I didn’t give this one permission or I gave this person ten or that person twenty, no! "You must get a team to research and get all the permissions and go through; don’t forget they are humans and can be subjected to influences; even though I’m still investigating it and I got reports from Civil Society Organisations, CSOs, that are focused on Parliament and they have gone to the extent of using the votes and proceedings – which is the basis for attendance… "I realised in the committee’s report, there was a split and the reason for the split is that they did not probe further…in that report, if you are telling me once the committee decides that the reasons given are reasonable and parliament must be bound and parliament cannot go into it and automatically the law kicks in, I will beg to defer from that. "And that is why the whole house, looking at the sanctity of the right of representation would have to take a decision and I am very clear in my mind about this." Background On Wednesday, October 26, Speaker Alban Bagbin ruled that the Privileges Committee’s report on the fate of Dome-Kwabenya legislator, Sarah Adwoa Safo, was not final. The Committee in its report on the absenteeism of Adwoa Safo recommended that her seat be declared vacant for failing to provide an explanation for her absence. But delivering the much-anticipated ruling, the Speaker noted that the report of the Committee must be tabled before the whole House for a decision to be made. “It is for the House that will go through it because the mandate given to an MP, representation is so crucial that it cannot be left to the subjective view of any person or group of people but the whole house”, Speaker Bagbin said on the floor on Wednesday. However, this did not go down well with the Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu. The Majority Leader who doubles as the Suame MP said the ruling is “unfortunate.” “I am expressing my discomfort with this unfortunate ruling that you have made. I totally disagree. I think it doesn’t sit with the Constitution and with your own earlier statements that you made in this House relating to those same things. Very inconsistent,” he retorted. This reaction caused another clash between himself and the Speaker who did not take the comment lightly. Alban Bagbin demanded a retraction to which the MP reluctantly obliged. In a subsequent press conference, the Suame MP added that “the Speaker is totally wrong in his understanding of the Constitution”. He said the Speaker’s ruling flouts Article 97 of the law which the Speaker quoted as the justification for his ruling. PEN/SARA