Alban Bagbin lacks the staple the constitutional and legal know-how

It is blue that, Ghana's parliament was pell-mell every which way on Thursday, when the nescient Speaker of Parliament vetoed the legal validity of four Members of Parliament, all because they have resolved to tussle for the parliamentary position as an independent candidate; meaning they wouldn't align themselves with any partisan political party in the upcoming parliamentary elections.

For a fact, the Speaker has no sole mandate to provoke the parameters of the law. He (Alban Bagbin) being the principal of all parliamentary proceedings, discourses, exercises etc doesn't warrant him with that legal tyrannic imprimatur whatever happens.

Our legislative system rings a myriad of level-headed and conscientious individuals, who are concordantly labelled as " Members of Parliament " based on the tenet of the 1992 Constitution.

Due to this, for the Parliament House to expedite its legal and constitutional assignments, it is however, indispensable for the members to develop the character of ' symbiosis ', thus for the MPs to be in bed with one another irrespective of one's partisan clan in the operations of parliamentary/legislative front.

It is salient for someone to moderate parliamentary proceedings, hence the establishment of a speakership position under the Gold Coast (Constitution) Order in Council in 1950, whereby Sir Emmanuel Charles Quist became the first Speaker of Parliament in Ghana.

We had a diametric actual image of who the Speaker of Parliament is at first, because some people classed the person in profuse ways _ ‘Parlour’ (mouth), ‘Prolocutor’ (chairman) and ‘Procurator’ (agent) until the 1992 Constitution drew a definite picture of it. So constitutionally, there are ciceronian functions of the Speaker of Parliament now, in consonance with Article 101 of the 1992 Constitution.

In general, the Speaker's official capacity is to umpire debates, rule on procedure and trumpet the corollaries of votes. One of the hallmarks of hunky-dory Speakership is the desideratum for a high degree of objectivity in the execution of the duties of the office. But Alban Bagbin is deficient in this benchmark _ he has been humming and hawing to decamp his twin with the NDC Party in the implementing of his constitutional obligations. Sometimes, his flickered reactions buttress this assertion on the floor of Parliament.

Yesterday marked the nadir of Alban Bagbin's superintendence as the Speaker of Parliament when he decreed four parliamentary seats " vacant " laying down his pronouncement to the fact that, the then Speaker of Parliament, Prof. Aaron Mike Oquaye exhibited the same to Hon. Andrew Asiamah in 2020 when he opted to contest as an independent candidate and in that, he has infracted Article 97(1)(g) of the 1992 Constitution.

I was revolted when he cited such a crappy and ailing pretext for his decision on the matter at stake. Truth be told, some of us thought that, with the infinite constitutional exploits of Alban Bagbin and the fact that, he's the longest-serving parliamentarian, he would act constitutionally plausible likewise his analogues _ Cavayé Yéguié Djibril of Cameroon, Nosiviwe Noluthando Mapisa-Nqakula of South Africa etc, but this man has proven otherwise.

Even the youngest Speaker of Parliament in the world, Andrónico Rodríguez of Bolivia is performing better than a veteran legislator, Alban Bagbin vastly.

The moment, Alban Bagbin dwelled on Prof. Aaron Mike Oquaye's conviction as a smokescreen, he should have rusticated himself as the Speaker of Parliament at that moment, for he lacks the rudimentary of the law. Moreover, the verdict of Prof. Aaron Mike Oquaye then is antithetical to his own.

In that case (Prof. Aaron Mike Oquaye's own), the New Patriotic Party had submitted a letter to the Speaker (Prof. Aaron Mike Oquaye), conveying to him the party's alacrity to forfeit the membership of Hon. Andrew Asiamah, because he had publicized his intent to compete for the parliamentary position as an independent candidate.

Here is a sketch of what Prof. Aaron Mike Oquaye posited in parliament en route to Hon. Andrew Asiamah's judgement then on the 7th of November 2020 " Having ' forfeited ' the membership of the party on whose ticket he was elected to Parliament, the operative language of the constitution is that, he shall – which is mandatory – vacate his seat in Parliament.” In this bulletin, he admitted unequivocally the receipt of a letter from the NPP leadership, apprising him of Hon. Andrew Asiamah being dispossessed of his partisan membership.

Therefore, using common sense or operative language as outlined by Prof. Aaron Mike Oquaye in his parliamentary delivery then, as the metric, it was opportune and felicitous for Prof. Aaron Mike Oquaye to bruit about that, the Fomena constituency was " vacant " without beseeching for any legal diagnosis from the Supreme Court, since his (Hon. Andrew Asiamah) party had abrogated his affiliation with the party.

In this case, the Speaker of Parliament had not welcomed any communiqué from the party (the NPP), but was perceived to stomach the cri de coeur presented to him by his partisan waif, ' Haruna Iddrisu '.

If the decision of the Speaker, Alban Bagbin wasn't politically conspired, then, he should have asked himself firstly, if the " Standing Orders ", which are major legal and moral instruments in parliament are identical during the epoch of Prof. Aaron Mike Oquaye as the Speaker of Parliament.

On June 23, 2023, the house drafted new Standing Orders which were acquiesced to, in January 2024. This connotes that, the trend of parliamentary affairs got rejigged, thus it isn't in adaptation to the days of Prof. Aaron Mike Oquaye. However, it will be all wet and off the wall, should Alban Bagbin try to asseverate his decision based on that previous precedence, since the two ' orders' have conflicting legal saturations, interpretations and lengths.

The balm of our constitution, legalities etc emerged after Alban Bagbin had stewed the legitimacy of it, when Hon. Afenyo-Markin sought dictum on that precipitous proclamation by him (Alban Bagbin ) and stung the red light of all the NPP MPs in parliament proceedings as well.

Being a prophet of " Trias Politica " or " Separation of Powers " which is adopted by the country also, it is factually accurate that, all the cardinal Arms of Government must be supposed to exercise their constitutional chores autonomously, without encroachment from any sector or person. In this regard, Article 130(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution, obliges the Supreme Court as the sole institution for this function.

I was scandalized when the Speaker flunked to network with the Supreme Court for the precise interpretation but elected himself to demonstrate the legal meaning of it because he presumes he's the Speaker, even though that portion is quite a cloak-and-dagger and may need legal guidance. Actually, it was a distinctive usurping from the Speaker and he should be objurgated by the Court for that unsavoury act.

I herein urge the Majority Leader, Hon. Alexander Markin - Afenyo to exude that kind of ' professional insolence and lordliness ' in the performance of his commissions in parliament.

The obsequity he has rendered to the Speaker is too extreme. It is time to act prudently coarse towards Alban Bagbin _ don't continue to keep mum on his (Alban Bagbin) partisan exhibitions in the arena of his work in parliament. Solemnly, point out to him in any case to let him grasp that, the position he occupies doesn't make him constitutionally aligned with any partisan political party, chiefly, in the discharge of his parliamentary works _ I think, Hon. Markin - Afenyo has got that locus; activate it reverentially.

In the end, I am fully convinced that, the Supreme Court shall nullify and invalidate the edict of the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin.