Parliament Vs. Judiciary: Why the Speaker got it wrong in the cross-carpeting controversy

Read Comments Comments (10)

• Kojo 1 year ago

  Since you are lopsided, I consider your write up crap and not worth my time

  Since you are lopsided, I consider your write up crap and not worth my time

  reply
• Abusua 1 year ago

  why can you people let politics blind you so much that you refuse to contribute towards positive nation building. what is so wrong with you to sit on your ass to write such a crap article. what kind of human being is the afri ...
  read full comment

  why can you people let politics blind you so much that you refuse to contribute towards positive nation building. what is so wrong with you to sit on your ass to write such a crap article. what kind of human being is the african literate ? why did your parents send you to school ?

  reply
• Kwaku Adu 1 year ago

  But why did you read it?

  But why did you read it?

  reply
• Dan 1 year ago

  Get away

  Get away

  reply
• Mr. Ibu 1 year ago

  Your argument is flawed and pathetic. Go and get more education. read the constitution. Article 99(1) deals with disputes resulting from elections or someone not meeting the eligibility criteria such as in the case of James Q ...
  read full comment

  Your argument is flawed and pathetic. Go and get more education. read the constitution. Article 99(1) deals with disputes resulting from elections or someone not meeting the eligibility criteria such as in the case of James Quayson issue but it is not all cases that the high court has to come in. Are you saying if an MP dies, or an MP absences himself or her for more than 21 seating days or an MP resigns the high court has to declare those vacant?. No. Artcicle 97 G and H is clear and there is no ambiguity here. They are seeking to remain in parliament through a different vehicle that brought them to parliament in the first place

  reply
• kwame 1 year ago

  Nonsense of an Article

  Nonsense of an Article

  reply
• Kwame 1 year ago

  What does Article 97 e to h of the 1992 Constitution says on crossing carpet?

  What does Article 97 e to h of the 1992 Constitution says on crossing carpet?

  reply
• Eric Akonor 1 year ago

  Well done. Very good reasoning.Since the NDC believes the SC is wrong and the NPP believes the Speaker is also wrong, why don’t they agree to refer the case to the High Court which will eventually ended with the Supreme Cou ...
  read full comment

  Well done. Very good reasoning.Since the NDC believes the SC is wrong and the NPP believes the Speaker is also wrong, why don’t they agree to refer the case to the High Court which will eventually ended with the Supreme Court anyway

  reply
• Eric Akonor 1 year ago

  It is not the duty of parliament of Ghana to interpret the constitution but the Supreme Court of Ghana. Laws that they pass, they don’t even have the right and duty to interpret them but the Supreme Court.
  The constitution ...
  read full comment

  It is not the duty of parliament of Ghana to interpret the constitution but the Supreme Court of Ghana. Laws that they pass, they don’t even have the right and duty to interpret them but the Supreme Court.
  The constitution was not drafted by parliament but a constituent assembly so with respect to all these lawyers, the Speaker has no right or the power to interpret the article 97 of the constitution.

  reply
• Ex-Pope 1 year ago

  It's wrong when Bagbin acts, but right for the NPP when former Speaker Oquaye took a similar action without any outcry from NPP Members of Parliament, right?

  It's wrong when Bagbin acts, but right for the NPP when former Speaker Oquaye took a similar action without any outcry from NPP Members of Parliament, right?

  reply