Parliament slumped into chaos yesterday as the Minority side rejected the declaration of the Kpandai Constituency seat vacant, and instead demanded the withdrawal of the statement issued by the House to that effect.
It was a re-enactment from Parliament’s recent playbook, with the Minority — clad in black with matching nose masks — resorting to noisy chants, including during a 15-minute submission by the Majority Leader, Mahama Ayariga.
They sang, banged tables and refused to yield to the House’s normal procedures in frantic defiance of Parliament’s own enduring rules and procedures.
The Minority Chief Whip, Frank Annor-Dompreh, later declared that until the Kpandai controversy was resolved, government business would suffer.
Speaking on the floor of Parliament, Mr Annor-Dompreh averred that the declaration made by the Speaker of Parliament the previous day, following a ruling by the High Court, was premature, given that an application for stay of execution was pending before the court.
The Member of Parliament (MP) for Nsawam-Adoagyiri further insisted that the declaration of the seat vacant was "inconsistent with binding procedural rules governing the effects of application for stay of execution".
“Mr Speaker, it is not right. When an application for stay of execution is pending for determination, any proceeding for execution of the judgment shall be stayed for the period,” he said.
Mr Annor-Dompreh affirmed that the Minority side “do not agree to the letter submitted to the EC (Electoral Commission)”, and called for it to be withdrawn forthwith.
He added that as a major pillar of democracy, Parliament must set a good example to society.
Majority’s reaction
But the Majority Leader, Mahama Ayariga, defended the Clerk of Parliament's decision to notify the EC of the vacancy of the Kpandai Constituency seat.
In a composed speech that travelled the path of history and precedents despite the noisy bangs and chants of the Minority, Mr Ayariga cited Article 112(5) of the Constitution, which states that the Clerk of Parliament shall notify the EC in writing within seven days after a vacancy occurs, and a by-election shall be held within 30 days after the vacancy occurs.
He explained that the Clerk acted in accordance with the Constitution, as the statutory seven-day stay period prior to his writing ended on December 1, 2025, triggering the obligation to notify the EC.
"The clerk was obliged constitutionally to notify the EC. On the 4th of December, the clerk wrote to the Electoral Commission indicating that there was a vacancy," Mr Ayariga said.
He emphasised that the Clerk's action was in line with the Constitution and the Speaker's ruling, and urged the House to uphold the notification and proceed with arrangements for a by-election.
Concern
Mr Annoh-Dompreh had said that the Speaker's decision had generated concern among Minority Members of Parliament because it appeared to undermine the rule of law.
“The law does not bind or stiffen whether an NPP or NDC member stands before it. The impartial and consistent application of the severe rules is the bedrock of the rule of law and the credibility of this House.
“If Parliament begins to act as though legal rules are optional, binding on some days and dispensable on other days, then we risk sliding into a dangerous culture of political tit-for-tat, where each Majority and Minority merely waits for a time to get even,” he said.
The Minority Chief Whip warned that a lack of confidence in Parliament would threaten the stability of the country’s democratic order.
He questioned the inconsistency in the position of the Speaker for declaring the Kpandai seat vacant, while during the eighth Parliament, he strongly maintained that Parliament must not act when there is an application for stay of execution.
“This same inconsistency was seen in the Honourable James Gyakye-Quayson matter during the eighth Parliament, where you strongly maintained that Parliament must not act while a stay of application is pending.
“Mr Speaker, with respect, the question that naturally arises is, why has the principle changed?
What explains the abrupt departure from the binding reasoning you articulated on 24th November, 2025?
Why does the stay rule apply in one circumstance, but not the other, particularly when the factual and procedural posture is virtually identical?”
The MP for Nsawam-Adoagyiri said until the contention over the declaration of the Kpandai seat was resolved, the Minority caucus would not cooperate with the Majority in doing government business.
“We on this side will not cooperate with you.
We have made and will continue to make this point; we are not obstructing government business.
We believe that governance is a continuum, and we must continue with government business.
“You have conspired to twist our hands. I put it to you that government business will suffer.
So, Mr Speaker, we are not doing any government business; we are not going to cooperate with you until the Kpandai (case) is resolved,” he stated.
Once Mr Annor-Dompreh concluded his submission, the Minority went into a disruptive mood, trying to drown the voice of Mr Ayariga.
The Majority Leader, however, persevered throughout.
Misinterpretation of ruling
However, the Majority Leader said the argument advanced by the Minority Chief Whip did not reflect the intent of the Speaker’s ruling delivered on the vacancy of the seat last month.
He indicated that the Speaker’s ruling citing provisions of the Court of Appeal Rules 1997, Constitutional Instrument (CI) 19, as amended in the Court of Appeal Rules of 2020, CI 132 Rule 27.3, did not mean the MP of Kpandai could continue to hold himself as an MP.
The Speaker deferred ruling on the matter.
Adjournment denied
The Minority then requested that Parliament adjourn proceedings, but the Majority rejected the request.
And when a voice vote went against them in addition to an unfavourable ruling on a request for a head count, the Minority raised the noise decibel as the Majority proceeded to pass various appropriations of the 2026 Budget.
