Vacant Seats Controversy: How the Speaker of Parliament got it all wrong in the face of the law and the facts

Read Comments Comments (7)

• Wanzam 1 year ago

  Rebuttal to the Conclusion on the Speaker’s Authority to Declare Seats Vacant
  The author’s conclusion asserts that the Speaker of Parliament had no legal authority to declare the four seats vacant under Articles 97(1)(g) ...
  read full comment

  Rebuttal to the Conclusion on the Speaker’s Authority to Declare Seats Vacant
  The author’s conclusion asserts that the Speaker of Parliament had no legal authority to declare the four seats vacant under Articles 97(1)(g) & (h) of the 1992 Constitution. However, this conclusion appears flawed based on the following analysis of the facts and law:
  
  Speaker’s Power to Declare Seats Vacant: The Speaker of Parliament does possess the authority to declare a seat vacant when a Member of Parliament (MP) violates constitutional provisions. Article 97(1)(g) of the 1992 Constitution clearly states that an MP "shall vacate his seat" if they leave the party they were elected under to join another party or seek to remain in Parliament as an independent candidate. The language of the provision is mandatory, and no further legal proceedings are necessary for this to take effect once the facts clearly show the MP has left their party.
  
  In this case, the Speaker’s declaration of the seats as vacant would be consistent with this constitutional mandate. If the MPs filed nominations to contest the next parliamentary elections as independent candidates, they effectively triggered Article 97(1)(g). Therefore, the Speaker acted within his legal authority by declaring the seats vacant, based on the MPs' actions signaling their departure from their original party.
  
  Justiciable Controversy and Interpretation: The author claims that the Speaker had no authority to interpret Articles 97(1)(g) & (h) in the face of a justiciable controversy. This argument is misleading because the Speaker’s role is administrative, not judicial. The Speaker does not "interpret" the Constitution in the way courts do; rather, he applies the clear provisions of the Constitution based on the facts presented to him. In this instance, once it became evident that the MPs had filed as independent candidates for the upcoming elections, it was within the Speaker’s administrative powers to declare the seats vacant in compliance with Article 97(1)(g).
  
  The Role of the Courts: While the courts have the power to resolve legal disputes and provide interpretation of constitutional provisions, the Speaker was applying the law based on clear, unambiguous provisions of the Constitution. The fact that the courts later became involved does not inherently mean the Speaker overstepped his authority. Instead, the courts’ role would be to review the facts and the Speaker’s decision in the broader context of constitutional law, not to suggest that the Speaker was acting beyond his powers.
  
  Partisanship Allegation: The author’s suggestion that the Speaker’s decision might have been influenced by partisanship is speculative and unsupported by any substantive evidence. In legal and constitutional matters, the Speaker is expected to act within the scope of the law, and in this case, there is no concrete basis to suggest that partisanship affected his decision to declare the seats vacant. The constitutional mandate to vacate a seat upon leaving a party is clear, and adherence to it is not a matter of political discretion but of legal obligation.

  reply
• Joko 1 year ago

  I want to speak specifically on the interpretation of Article 97(g)(h). Bagbin makes a good observation that those 2 clauses were meant to prevent cross carpeting. But quite strangely, he seems ignorant about what cross carpe ...
  read full comment

  I want to speak specifically on the interpretation of Article 97(g)(h). Bagbin makes a good observation that those 2 clauses were meant to prevent cross carpeting. But quite strangely, he seems ignorant about what cross carpeting or the more popular term floor crossing is. It seems strange . Because when he assumed himself that judicial role, it was expected that at least he wld make some research before making those interpretative pronouncements. I have made an extensive research on what cross carpeting is and no where have I found a meaning close to what many ppl are saying. An MP who decides to contest a future election on a different ticket has not crossed carpet in anyway. Those MPs have not even won the election. To cross the floor or carpet is to switch caucuses in Parliament. That has not happenend. Those MPS still belong to their various sides and are currently in the same committees they were designated to based on the majority or minority caucuses they belonged from their first day in Parliament.
  
  The whole of Article 97 talks about the tenure(term of an MP). So why wld sub clauses (g) and (h) talk about their future intentions in an election that has not even bee held ?

  reply
• Kofi 1 year ago

  Ask former Speaker Mike Ocquaye. He set the precedence. Why was Asiamah seat declared vacant when its intention was for future election?

  Ask former Speaker Mike Ocquaye. He set the precedence. Why was Asiamah seat declared vacant when its intention was for future election?

  reply
• Joko 1 year ago

  Mike Ocquaye was wrong . And it is absolutey asinine to think that we shd allow the wrong thing to be done because of equalisation. i have made my points , if you think that it is wrong please provide superior reasoning beca ...
  read full comment

  Mike Ocquaye was wrong . And it is absolutey asinine to think that we shd allow the wrong thing to be done because of equalisation. i have made my points , if you think that it is wrong please provide superior reasoning because I may be wrong.

  reply
• FUCKING ASSHOLE LAWYER IDDI MUHAYO 1 year ago

  DO YOU WASH YOUR STUPID FACE UPWARDS???. THE CONSTITUTION IS VERY CLEAR ON THE POWWER OF THE SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT TO DECLEAR A SEAT VACANT SO WHAT DO YOU MEAN MR. STUPID LAWYER. YOU ALL HAVE BECOME LAIRS AND IDIOTS UNDER THE ...
  read full comment

  DO YOU WASH YOUR STUPID FACE UPWARDS???. THE CONSTITUTION IS VERY CLEAR ON THE POWWER OF THE SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT TO DECLEAR A SEAT VACANT SO WHAT DO YOU MEAN MR. STUPID LAWYER. YOU ALL HAVE BECOME LAIRS AND IDIOTS UNDER THE RETARDED PRESIDENT AKUFFO ADDO. BUT TIME WILL TELL FOOOLS.

  reply
• Nimo 1 year ago

  Kwasea. Even the NDC has done the needful by applying to a High Court. Quote where the constitution gives the Speaker that power .

  Kwasea. Even the NDC has done the needful by applying to a High Court. Quote where the constitution gives the Speaker that power .

  reply
• Tilz 1 year ago

  Nimo, without insult cant you make your point?

  Nimo, without insult cant you make your point?

  reply