Yesterday, the speaker of parliament returned a landmark verdict, in which he declared four seats vacant. According to the Speaker, he relied on precedence, the standing order of parliament, and the constitution to decide on a matter that bothers largely on carpet crossing. This resulted in three members from the New Patriotic Party losing their seats, with one NDC member of parliament being visited by the same faith. The net effect of the ruling is that the New Patriotic Party, which constituted the majority group, will now become the Minority in Parliament, having 135 members as against 136 from the National Democratic Congress. Whilst the Majority group, unhappy with the ruling of the Speaker, walked out of parliament in protest against the decision and have decided to boycott parliament until the Supreme Court decides on the matter, the Minority commended the Speaker, noting that the decision has set the stage for the resetting of the country, as their political campaign demands. Beyond the political and partisan impact of this ruling, a lot of people have called to question the practicality of such a ruling that has the potential of grinding activities of parliament to a halt.
N/B: I have decided not to quote a single legal provision. I am purely arguing logically. This does not mean I am unaware of the rules and laws that relate to this matter. My attempt is to provide the logical basis that should have informed the interpretation of those laws, so Ghana is not caught up in a constitutional quagmire, as the current ruling appears to result in.
ONLY POLITICAL PARTIES CAN CRY FOUL
The provisions and the laws that back the issue of carpet crossing are essentially political or partisan ones. It has no effect or impact on the developmental fortunes of the country or the working of parliament. In my estimation, that provision compensates political parties for creating and preparing viable candidates to contest and represent their interests and those of a designated constituent. Carpet crossing does not affect the operations of parliament in any way. Once a party is convinced that the decision of its member of parliament to contest on the ticket of a different party will affect their fortunes, it is incumbent on them to raise the alarm. The fact that they have vested interest in this case is a reason they would have a locus in this case. It cannot be another sitting member of parliament from another party raising such objections on their behalf. In the case of the Fomena MP, the then Speaker of Parliament reasoned that the New Patriotic Party, the party whose member was cross-carpeting, had petitioned the Speaker to declare their seat vacant, as the decision of the member to go solo was inimical to their party’s fortunes. Speaker Aaron Mike Oquaye’s ruling was premised on the fact that the NPP, which had presented such a candidate, was the only party with the capacity to cry foul if a member was acting in a manner that injured their interest. Truly, I was expecting Speaker Bagbin to follow that same reasoning even though he was not bound by this precedence. Sadly, he chose to interpret the letter of the provisions, a decision that will adversely impact parliament and pit the legislature against the judiciary should the Supreme Court decide otherwise.
HON. ASIAMAH GAVE THE NPP ITS MAJORITY
When Hon. Asiamah won the Fomena seat as an independent candidate in the 2020 elections, he made history and became the talk of the town. He became the biblical rejected stone that had become the cornerstone. But for his decision to pitch camp with the ruling New Patriotic Party, Ghana would have, for the first time, had a parliament whose presidential candidate lost the elections. Hon. Asiamah openly announced his decision to join the NPP group on the floor of parliament, a decision that culminated in the party honouring him with a Second Deputy Speaker position. From this, it is obvious that the decision of where a member of parliament aligns politically cannot be decided without the input of the said member or parliament or that of their party on whose ticket they are in parliament. (If the current laws do not have provision for this, then we need to amend them to prevent this confusion.) In this current instance, HON. Asiamah had decided to move from being an independent candidate to contest the next parliamentary seat on the ticket of the ruling New Patriotic Party. Logically, it is completely absurd that this decision that should ordinarily serve the interest of the NPP is rather being used to affect the political fortunes of the party in parliament. This is a clear instance where the carpet crossing will advance rather than deteriorate the interest of the political; therefore, it will be a complete absurdity for that decision, which should preserve the interest of the NPP, to be used against the party.
Difference between Aaron Mike Oquaye’s ruling and Bagin’s ruling.
It is very simplistic for anyone to assume that because the Fomena member of parliament, Mr. Asiamah, had suffered a similar fate under the Speakership of Aaron Mike Oquaye , what happened yesterday was no different. While in substance, the case is similar as it bothers on carpet crossing, there is a material difference in the processes leading to the decision. The first difference is that unlike in this current case, it was the New Patriotic Party, which had petitioned Aaron Mike Oquaye to declare the seat vacant. In this current case, the petitioner was Haruna Iddrissu, from the National Democratic Congress. Legally, Haruna Iddrissu has no locus, as his interest will not be affected with the continued stay of parliament of these four members of parliament. The only interest he stood gaining was the partizan impact that his political grouping stood to gain. It is my view that Speaker Bagin should not have fallen for this trap.
Representation
The constituents who voted for the affected MP deserve every right of representation. The decision of a member of parliament to vary or deviate from the parties on whose ticket he/she landed in party cannot result in annulling the voices of their constituent. This is highly undemocratic and discriminatory. I am looking forward to a constituent heading to the courts to compel them to overturn a decision that essentially denies them representation. Because we have less than three months into the next elections, the EC cannot organise a bye-election to get those positions filled. In this instance, what it means is that until the next elections, these constituents will be without parliamentary representation. I am not sure the constitution anticipates such a vacuum. I am one that believes in the sanctity of representation and won’t hesitate to criticise any effort, either legal or otherwise, that compromises on the same.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court should bring finality to this matter. The precedence set by the current ruling will be dire. It will create an enterprise where political parties may lose control over the persons they select to represent them in parliament. There are many more consequences that I don’t intend to press now.
By: Samuel Arthur
Communications/Media Consultant
DISCLAIMER: The views, comments, and contributions made by readers or contributors on this website do not necessarily represent the position or views of The Sikaman Times. The Sikaman Times will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements made by readers or contributors on this website.
