Parliament recall drain on state coffers - Speaker asserts

The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, has expressed concern over the abuse of the invocation of Article 112 (3) within a session of the current Parliament.

He said the frequent invocation of Article 112 (3) to recall Parliament could disrupt the planned legislative annual budget and workflow of the House, drain national resources and affect the overall productivity of Parliament.

He, therefore, urged the members of the House to, at the appropriate time, deliberate on the matter to establish when it would be appropriate to resort to the use of Article 112 (3).

“Article 112 should not become a tool to keep Parliament in perpetual or continuous session, thereby preventing Parliament and members from performing the other constitutional functions and duties to the country and constituencies,” he said.

Governance challenged

Addressing the opening of a two-day extraordinary sitting at the dome of the Accra International Conference Centre yesterday, Mr Bagbin said: “A frequent invocation of Article 112 (3), particularly in a House composed such as this eighth Parliament, could pose challenges to the governance of the country.

Parliament House

“The good intentions of the drafters of the Constitution could be turned into a horror movie,” he said.

The Speaker summoned the House following a request his office received on July 31, 2024 pursuant to Article 112 (3) of the Constitution and Order 53 of the Standing Orders of Parliament.

The request was submitted by more than the constitutional requirement of 15 per cent of Members of Parliament for the House to consider some urgent matters.

They include a $250 million International Development Association of the World Bank financing agreement for the Ghana Energy Sector Recovery Programme, tax waivers and a possible reconsideration of a decision of the House on an earlier item that was taken on July 30, 2024.

These items were already before the House and were advertised to have been taken during the third meeting.

Provisions

Article 112 (3) of the Constitution states: “Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, 15 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."

Similarly, Order 53 (1) of the revised Standing Orders of Parliament also states that “(1) Despite any other provision, 15 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," while (2) says “Parliament shall convene within seven days after the issuance of the notice of summons”. 

Agreement

A day before the request on July 30, 2024, the Speaker had adjourned the House sine die, a decision, he said, was not made unilaterally.

“This date was scheduled by the parliamentary calendar for the Fourth Session of the Eighth Parliament, which called for an adjournment at the end of July.

“This scheduled date was discussed and agreed upon at pre-sitting meetings of the Speaker and leaders weeks prior to the adjournment,” he said.

Mr Bagbin said official records, including voice and video recordings, of proceedings testified that he consistently communicated the decision throughout the meeting.

“This is found in the official records of the sittings of 6th, 11th, 25th, and 26th July, 2024. These records show the adjournment was therefore neither sudden nor without prior notice,” he said.

The Speaker said in preparation for the planned adjournment, leadership of the House prioritised key agenda items to be taken and further extended sittings late into the night to ensure that all critical businesses were completed by the agreed date.

To achieve that, he said, he accepted to preside over the extended sittings each day until the House adjourned.

“This was particularly necessary because both Deputy Speakers were unavoidably absent during the final weeks, as the official reports of proceedings show,” he said.

Despite the efforts of the House, some businesses could not be completed, indicating to the House that he had no objection to the House being recalled to sit mid-September under Article 112 (3).

The Speaker, therefore, urged the House that the frequent invocation of Article 112 (3) within a session of Parliament should be of concern to all members of the House.

He said while the provisions were clear and unambiguous, the House must consider the broader context in which they were intended to operate and legislate to set down the preconditions under which the Article could apply.

“Parliament recedes to focus more on its other functions of scrutiny, representation, advocacy and diplomacy. It should be recalled when and only when an exceptional or urgent matter or business arises and requires Parliament’s immediate attention,” he said.

Opposition

In his opening remarks, the Minority Leader, Dr Cassiel Ato Forson, said the Minority would oppose granting a tax waiver of $350 million to “crony businesses in a very opaque and non-transparent manner.”

“Giving away tax exemptions in excess of $350 million is not an urgent issue that should warrant a recall,” he said.

Unfinished business

The Majority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, opined that the House was not able to exhaust the business that had been programmed before it during the Third Meeting, hence the decision to evoke the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Standing Orders for the House to be recalled.

He, for instance, said the House was called on to consider a number of requests for the waiver of taxes and other levies for beneficiary companies under the government’s One-District, One-Factory programme.

“These form part of initiatives by the government to ensure that incentives are provided to sustain investors’ interest in undertaking businesses in the country,” he said, and urged the House to implement measures to curb the misuse of tax waivers.