Publishing IPAC decisions crucial - Oduro Osae

Given that some Members of Parliament (MPs) and their political parties were in favour of the proposed change of date for elections from December 7, but may have voted against the constitutional amendment bill which would have given legal backing to the new date, it has become necessary that decisions taken at the Inter Party Advisory Committee (IPAC) meeting be published in order to expose the hypocrisy of some political parties, Dr Eric Oduro Osae, Dean, Graduate School of the Institute of Local Government Studies, has said.

Parliament this week was unable to pass the bill to pave the way for the elections to be organised on the new date, November 7. The majority, 125 of whom voted in a secret ballot in favour of the bill, could not secure the two-thirds majority; 95 MPs voted against the bill.

A livid Dr Oduro Osae said on TV3’s Agenda Saturday July 23: “They [MPs] may have taken us for granted – looking at the assurance given to us before we even submitted it [the bill]. [We thought] we were going to have it passed without any difficulties.

“This is where I always say that IPAC, if we can, let us have a publication of decisions taken at IPAC. It is very important. [IPAC decisions] are not binding, but it helps us to understand what has happened at the IPAC, so that if somebody comes out or a group comes out to say that we are not going to agree, we will see the hypocrisy [of those parties].

“I think that we should look at it as a parliamentary decision. We shouldn’t look at it on a partisan basis because none of us has enough evidence to say that Party A voted yes or no.

“When you look at the 220 members on that day, 125 voted in favour and then 95 voted against. The question then is: ‘Where were the remaining 55 MPs?’ Where were they? Didn’t they know that they were going to vote on that day? And I believe some of them were touting that we should move it to November 7.

If it were to be anything that has been tabled by the Executive for a loan to be approved or something to be approved, I can assure you that we would have had a full house of parliament.”