Politics for legality

Dr Dominic Ayine is a lawyer and a Member of Parliament from the National Democratic Congress. He has clearly explained that the noise that the NDC Caucus in Parliament is making is more about politics than law.

He granted an interview to a TV3 journalist about what the Speaker could do about the Supreme Court decision to grant a stay of execution against the Speaker’s ruling, declaring  that four parliamentary seats had become vacant and said, legally, the only alternative was for the Speaker to comply or challenge the decision before the same court.

When the Majority Leader, Afenyo-Markin, endorsed Dr Ayine’s comment as the correct statement of the law, Dr Ayine turned against him, saying the majority leader was being mischievous because when he, Ayine, stated the correct legal position, he was only giving a legal opinion and that he had subsequently become aware the NDC had taken a political stance to which he stood bound as a member of the caucus.    

Does it mean that the Speaker of Parliament, Right Honourable Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, was called upon to state a legal or political position when a submission was made to him by Haruna Iddrisu to make a declaration as to whether the seats had become vacant or otherwise. More importantly, what does it mean to make reference to a constitutional provision? Is it a legal or political position?

Is it any wonder that after their press conference to announce that they would not respect any decision of the court and that all they know is that in accordance with their Standing Orders, it is only the Speaker who can direct them, nothing less nothing more, they burst into revolutionary chants as if we are not in a constitutional era?

No wonder, Mahama Ayariga resonated the "we no respect any court order”, when he said all they know is the Speaker and  shamefully made the  dangerous statement that " if the Speaker directed us to march into the sea we would do exactly that."

Quite unfortunately our elected representatives in Parliament are willing and ready to commit suicide if they are so directed by the Speaker because they have chosen politics over legality.

With the legal luminaries in the party opting to choose politics over law, it is no wonder that the leadership of the party is making unnecessarily pretentious or vague comments, counting their chicks before they a hatched, building castles in the air and using that to predict the outcome of the general election on December 7, 2024.

The Minority Leader under the hubris of being the Majority Leader and under the false notion of Article 102 that " A quorum of Parliament, apart from the person presiding, shall be one third of all members of Parliament" went on to indicate that they were going to appoint the Second Deputy Speaker of Parliament since by the ruling of the Speaker the position had become vacant.

As a follow up to their press conference where they stated that they did not respect the rule of law and due process, he announced that they were going to repeal a number of legislation on taxes, including the e-levy and the Betting tax, the latter which incidentally was passed by the NDC.

He chose to ignore Article 104, which provides that " Except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, matters in Parliament shall be determined by the votes of the majority of members present and voting, with at least half of all the members of Parliament present".

Jumping the cart

With this reality, the NDC should not have jumped the cart by the empty presumption that with the ruling of the Speaker, the NDC was ready to effect changes within the Legislature, although technically, they do not have the numbers to do anything, except to deliberate on matters upon which they cannot take any decision.

The Minority in Parliament must not miseducate itself on Article 110 (1) which states that " Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may, by standing orders, regulate its own procedure. In much the same way, Sovereignty does not lie with any of the Executive, Legislature or Judiciary but with the people.

But if there is any of the three arms of government whose tentacles are permitted to intrude into the other two, it would be the judiciary, as  the judiciary has the Eagle feather.

A law lecturer from the University of Professional Studies, Accra (UPSA), Justice Abdulai, who sat on national television at prime time, on Ghana Broadcasting Corporation’s GBC News programme, Talking Point, and did not only describe the Supreme Court decision staying execution of the Speakers declaration as absurd, but added that it could be an invitation to an action of Contempt of Parliament against the apex court, compelling the host, who does not appreciate constitutionalism, to cite  Article 122 on Contempt of Parliament.

He did not take note of Article 107(a) to the effect that " Parliament shall have no power to pass any law to alter the decision or judgement of any court as between the parties subject to that decision or judgement".

Harm test

Indeed, under Article 103 (6) the powers of any committee of Parliament, including the Privileges Committee of Parliament, is the equivalent of a High Court or a Justice of the High Court.

It states," A committee appointed under this article shall have the powers, rights and privileges of a High Court or a Justice of the High Court at the trial for enforcing the attendance of a witness and examining them on oath, affirmation or otherwise; compelling the production of documents and  issuing a commission or report to examine witnesses abroad.

How then can the Supreme Court, not just a judge, be charged for Contempt of Parliament?

Sometimes when we occupy certain positions we ignore or forget about the harm test, doing unto others what we want others to do unto us. It was ASK Bagbin as MP and Minority Leader, who told Speaker Peter Ala Adjetey that he was not a member of the House and should never presume that he could impose his views or think that his opinions were binding on MPs.