As Parliament prepares to debate the President’s Sessional Address delivered to the House, last Thursday, there have been varied and divergent reactions from members depending on which part they belong.
As the Minority NDC maintains that the address lacks initiative and focus, was uninspiring and provocative among others, those from the majority side describe it as “excellent and full of vision.” Indications are that, it will be uncompromising as members have already shown signs of what to expect.
The Member for Bole Bamboi, John Mahama says last Thursday’s Sessional Address fails to spell out bold initiatives the government is taking to deal with the numerous problems the President mentioned.
He said NPP government is stacked in what he called “opposition syndrome.”
Mahama who was a former minister for Communications in the NDC regime said moments after the address that the President only succeeded in going over once more, the problems of the country which by now are well known to everybody. For him, what the president should be doing now is to tell this country what bold initiatives he and his government are putting in place to deal with the problems.
“We are looking for bold initiatives in agriculture, in health, in education and in employment. These are the key areas that the NPP made promises. But we don’t see that in the speech,” Hon. Mahama said. He added that, “the NPP is stacked in what I call the opposition syndrome, very good at outlining the problems, but forgetting that they are in charge now and supposed to be solving the problems.”
He said the address is full of intentions but short of bold initiatives to solve the numerous problems.
First deputy Speaker, Freddie Blay describes the address as “excellent” and disagrees with the assertion that it was full of only promises and no initiatives. “ I am surprised when anybody says that it is still campaign promise.” To him, the President has outlines various projects that his government would be undertaking this year and so it will be unfair for anybody to say that the address was just full of promises. “Let’s see for four years to come if nothing is done, then we have to decide for ourselves, but as far as I am concerned, I am happy with it,” Blay told the Network Herald.
To the Second deputy Speaker, Ken Dzirasah, the address lacked the spirit of reconciliation, was provocative and full of inaccuracies. “Certain issues that he has raised were formulating into some severe inaccuracies and I thought that if he was addressing the nation as the President, he should have acknowledged what has taken place and indicated what he intends doing. At a certain stage, some members from my side, were inclined, if the rules of the House had permitted, of drawing the Speaker’s attention to the language he used and then asked that the Speaker brings him to order.” He added that, “that was the contemplation but of course the rules do not permit that, if the President is addressing the nation, there must be decorum.”
Hon. Dzirasah said the President sought to undermine what the previous government had done, adding that although he is entitled to do that, it could have been done in a more descent language. “I thought that some of the statements he made were very very provocative. I am convinced that those statements were right to provoke a number issues by way of reaction from our side of the House,” Mr. Dzirasah, adding that certainly, that will happen when the debate commences.
