NPP triggers Parliament recall

The New Patriotic Party (NPP) Caucus in Parliament has requested the Speaker of Parliament to summon Parliament to transact urgent government business.

A memorandum addressed to the Speaker, signed by the Second Deputy Majority Chief Whip and Member of Parliament (MP) for Sefwi Akontombra, Alex Tetteh Djornobuah, cited three urgent matters for consideration, including six bills, and five legal basis for the request to summon Parliament.

“We respectfully request that, upon recall of the House, the following urgent Government Business be deliberated upon and transacted, including any other business that comes before the House,” he said, and listed the business to include a request for Tax Exemptions for designated beneficiaries under the One District, One Factory Programme.

The others are seeking parliamentary approval for $250 million International Development Association facility to operationalise the Ghana Financial Stability Fund, and the consideration of six bills, namely the Environmental Protection Agency Bill, 2024; the Social Protection Bill, 2023; the Customs (Amendment) Bill, 2024; the Budget Bill, 2023; the Ghana Boundary Commission Bill, 2023, and the Intestate Succession Bill, 2022.

Mr Djornobuah also attached the list of MPs on the Majority side which had 138 members, out of which about 80 had signed the request, representing almost 58 per cent and more than 15 per cent requesting to trigger a recall of Parliament.

Context 

Providing the context of the request, the Second Deputy Majority Chief Whip said Parliament had adjourned sine die last Tuesday, without any explanation to the circumstance leading to the adjournment.

“You may also recall that at conclave, you confirmed the service of a Supreme Court Order which was explicit. At the time, the above stated items had been advertised and scheduled to be carried,” the memorandum said.

The Sefwi Akontombra legislator emphasised that the request was being made “in utmost good faith and in the national interest to enable the government to discharge its constitutional and democratic obligations to the people of Ghana”.

He said the matters outlined for the Speaker’s consideration to summon Parliament were of pressing importance and required the urgent attention of the House.

Legal basis for request

Mr Djornobuah cited Article 112(3) of the 1992 Constitution and Standing Order 53, among others, for the request for Parliament to reconvene.

Article 112(3) of the Constitution, states: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, fifteen per cent of Members of Parliament may request a meeting of Parliament; and the Speaker shall, within seven days after the receipt of the request, summon Parliament."

Standing Order 53(1), reiterates: "Despite any other provision, fifteen per cent of the Members of Parliament may request a meeting of Parliament and the Speaker shall, within seven days after the receipt of the request, summon Parliament."

Standing Order 53(2), further stipulates: "Parliament shall convene within seven days after the issuance of the notice of summons."

Furthermore, Standing Order 57(3), provides: "The Speaker may summon a sitting of the House before the date or time to which the House has been adjourned or at any date or time after the House has been adjourned sine die."

Again, Standing Order 58(4), states that: "The Speaker shall summon Parliament within a period determined by the Speaker and the requirement for a fourteen-day notice shall not apply where there is an emergency."

Based on the legal basis, Mr Djornobuah and his colleagues on the Majority side asked the Speaker to summon Parliament for a meeting within the stipulated seven-day period.

“Considering the constitutional and statutory provisions cited above and in the exercise of our rights as Members of Parliament, we respectfully urge you to summon Parliament for a Meeting within the stipulated seven-day period”.

“We stand ready to provide any additional information or clarification that may be required and look forward to your favourable consideration of this request,” Mr Djornobuah said.

Background

Government business in Parliament took a hit last Tuesday when the Speaker, Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, adjourned the House indefinitely.

This followed the Speaker’s acknowledgement of the legal proceedings surrounding the composition of the House and the attendant public interest over the declaration of the seats of four MPs vacant.

With the Supreme Court order restraining his hands on the matter that had evoked drama in the nation’s political space in the past week, the Speaker adjourned proceedings less than 15 minutes after he had assumed his chair in the chamber.

“In view of the current circumstances, the fact that there is a question on the composition and constitution of Parliament and having regard to the public interest and the exigencies of the state of affairs in Parliament, I will proceed to, in accordance with Standing Orders 59(1), adjourn the House indefinitely, i.e., sine die,” he said in the brief address to the members.

Vacant seats, court processes

The Supreme Court last Friday, granted a restraining order on the Speaker regarding the execution of his verdict to declare the seats of four MPs vacant for filing to contest the 2024 parliamentary elections on tickets different from what they represent in the current Parliament.

The four MPs are the Agona West Member of Parliament (MP), Cynthia Morrison of the New Patriotic Party (NPP); Amenfi Central MP, Peter Yaw Kwakye-Ackah of the National Democratic Congress (NDC); Suhum MP, Kwadwo Asante of the NPP, and Fomena MP, Andrew Asiamah Amoako, an independent MP.

Ms Morrison, Mr Kwakye-Ackah and Mr Asante have all filed as independent candidates in the December 7 polls, while Mr Amoako Asiamah has filed to contest as a candidate of the NPP.

It is on the basis of this that Mr Bagbin, seeking to enforce clauses (g) and (h) of Article 97(1) of the Constitution, declared that the four had vacated their seats by filing to contest the next polls on new tickets.

Article 97(1)(g) states that a member of Parliament shall vacate his seat in Parliament “if he leaves the party of which he was a member at the time of his election to Parliament to join another party or seeks to remain in Parliament as an independent member”, while Article 97(h) states that the member would forfeit his seat “if he was elected a Member of Parliament as an independent candidate and joins a political party”.

In response to the Speaker’s ruling, the Majority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, filed an ex parte application at the Supreme Court arguing that the Speaker’s action was premature and legally flawed.

Mr Afenyo-Markin insisted that the matter ought to be properly adjudicated by the courts before any such declaration could take effect. 

The apex court, after considering the application, agreed to halt the Speaker’s ruling, pending the final determination of the substantive case.

Trigger recall

The NPP Caucus, after the House was adjourned sine die, stated that it would trigger a recall of the House.

The Leader of Government Business, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, told the Daily Graphic that the caucus would trigger Article 112 (3) of the Constitution to recall the House to consider some unfinished government businesses.

“Mr Speaker is not Parliament, and I think things are getting out of hand; Mr Speaker was wrong in adjourning the House sine die, and we are going to trigger a recall,” he said.