The recent move by Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin to declare four parliamentary seats vacant has drawn criticism from Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare, also known as Kwaku Azar.
According to Kwaku Azar, this decision creates a risky precedent that would deter MPs from preparing their future political aspirations out of concern about possible repercussions.
Kwaku Azar said in a Facebook post on Thursday, October 17, that the decision would upset the electorate’s power balance and foster an atmosphere in which Members of Parliament feel constrained in their ability to pursue political careers.
He cautioned that such decisions may discourage MPs from following independent or varied political routes, underscoring the possibility that the decision could have wider ramifications for Ghana’s parliamentary system and general democratic processes.
Concerns regarding the decision’s long-term repercussions on the nation’s democratic governance and MP autonomy are highlighted in Azar’s opinion.
Professor Kwaku Azar is adamant that Alban Bagbin’s decision creates a risky precedent that could upset the balance of power in Parliament and jeopardize the fundamental right to freedom of association.
“This decision creates a risky precedent that makes it harder for MPs to plan their political futures without worrying about the repercussions right away.
Regardless of the MP’s present behavior, it permits capricious choices in which submitting a nomination for a subsequent election can be mistaken for a change of allegiance.
Bagbin’s declaration of four seats vacant sets dangerous precedent – Kwaku Azar
By prematurely departing seats, upsetting voter-established balances, and undermining the idea that MPs serve out their whole term unless they specifically shift allegiance, this expansive interpretation runs the risk of destabilizing Parliament.
Additionally, it might have a chilling effect, discouraging MPs from looking into potential political prospects in the future.
Speaker Alban Bagbin’s decision to declare four parliamentary seats empty, according to Professor Kwaku Azar, violates the fundamental right to freedom of association, which includes the ability to join parties and seek future political affiliations.
The fundamental right to freedom of association, which includes the ability to join parties and seek future political affiliations, is also in conflict with this finding.
MPs are unfairly penalized and discouraged when a nomination for a future election is treated as a severance of current allegiance.
Kwaku Azar has previously voiced similar worries about how Ghana’s parliamentary vacancy regulations should be interpreted.
In 2020, Kwaku Azar maintained that neither the Speaker nor political parties have the power to decide whether a parliamentary seat has been abandoned; only the High Court does.
Following the filing of a motion by former Minority Leader Haruna Iddrisu, who cited constitutional restrictions requiring MPs seeking independent candidacies to resign their parliamentary positions, Bagbin made his judgments. The majority protested the decision by staging a walkout.
The MPs who are impacted are Peter Kwakye Ackah (Amenfi Central), Andrew Asiamah Amoako (Fomena), Kwadjo Asante (Suhum), and Cynthia Morrison (Agona West).
Read Kwaku Azar’s post below.
The Speaker made an extraordinary decision this afternoon by declaring the seats of four Members of Parliament vacant. These MPs had submitted nominations to run on a different ticket, which was the basis for the Speaker’s decision. None of the four MPs had, however, told the Speaker or Parliament that they had switched allegiances within the House at the time of the decision.
It is not necessary to break ties with the present party in Parliament in order to submit a nomination to compete in a future election as an independent or on a different party’s ticket.
The House was evenly divided 137-137-1 before they filed their nominations, and it stayed that way following the filings. This proves that submitting a nomination does not change an MP’s current affiliation, responsibilities, or duties; rather, it is only an indication of intent for a future political path. The MPs continue to fulfill their present term in accordance with the social contract that was established when they were elected.
An MP’s loyalty to the parliament is based on their behavior and actions during their present term, not on their goals for the future. Regardless of whatever nomination they may submit for a subsequent election cycle, an MP’s position and allegiance inside Parliament do not alter until they formally resign or change affiliation. It would be a misapplication of the law to construe a future nomination as a breakup of current relationships, conflating future plans with unrealized actions.
The Constitution’s Article 97(1)(g) and (h) address activities that impact the House’s numerical makeup in an effort to prevent circumstances that could sway voters’ decisions. MPs should refrain from unilaterally altering the balance if the electorate has voted for a 137-137-1 vote, and those who try to do so while in office are required to resign.
The fundamental idea is to maintain stability in parliamentary representation by preventing mid-term changes of loyalty. Future plans or political aspirations that will only be implemented in the upcoming term—such as an MP running on a different platform in the subsequent election—are not covered by the statute.
In this case, timing is crucial. When an MP actively associates with a different party while serving in Parliament, this is referred to as “joining a political party.” Future political connections that take effect after the current term are not covered by it. The rule would unfairly restrict MPs’ capacity to plan their political future if it were expanded to cover any future actions, such as switching parties in the next election. This would go beyond the statute’s original intent.
Fixing an MP’s loyalty during the current parliamentary term in accordance with the mandate provided by voters is the main objective of the law. This mandate is unaffected by actions performed after the term, such as joining a party for a subsequent election. According to the platform they stood for at the time of their election, the law protects the confidence that people placed in the MP.
When he campaigned as an independent in the 2004 election, Dr. William Akoto, the New Abirem MP from 2001 to 2004, kept his seat. Joe Owusu (Wise), who represented Bekwai as an independent MP from 2009 to 2012, also campaigned as an NPP candidate in 2012 without giving up his seat. When competing as an independent in 2012, Mr. Teye-Nyaunu, the NDC MP for Lower Manya Krobo, likewise retained his seat.
In contrast, the legislation was correctly enforced in the Wayo Seini case, in which he crossed the floor in Parliament, joined the NPP, formally resigned from the NDC, and asked the Speaker to inform the EC that he had left his position.
Furthermore, Article 97(1) gives the High Court the authority to decide disputes pertaining to seat vacation. Factual conclusions—such as determining an MP’s intents from their actions—are outside the Speaker’s jurisdiction, even though issues like death, resignation, or dissolution do not raise concerns and are handled by the Speaker or Clerk.
This decision creates a risky precedent that makes it harder for MPs to plan their political futures without worrying about the repercussions right away.
Regardless of the MP’s present behavior, it permits capricious choices in which submitting a nomination for a subsequent election can be mistaken for a change of allegiance.
By prematurely departing seats, upsetting voter-established balances, and undermining the idea that MPs serve out their whole term unless they specifically shift allegiance, this expansive interpretation runs the risk of destabilizing Parliament. Additionally, it might have a chilling effect, discouraging MPs from looking into potential political prospects in the future.
The fundamental right to freedom of association, which includes the ability to join parties and seek future political affiliations, is also in conflict with this finding. In addition to unfairly punishing MPs, treating a nomination for a future election as a severance of current allegiance deters political engagement and realignment. This erodes fundamental democratic values and threatens political plurality.
Lastly, the decision is problematic since, according to article 112(6), a by-election cannot be held less than three months before to a general election. This clause is violated when seats are vacated so near to an election, causing needless upheaval and depriving constituencies of representation at a crucial time. As the nation gets ready for national elections, it undercuts the Constitution’s goal of preserving continuity and stability in Parliament.
The December 2020 vote of 137-137-1 is protected by Article 97(1)(g) and (h). Invoking these provisions is not necessary because the four MPs have not upset this equilibrium. However, the initial mandate was undermined today when the Rt. Hon. Speaker unilaterally changed the judgment to 135-136.
With dignity, GOGO bows.
The eighth parliament’s cardinal sin is #SALL.
Da Yie!
