Private legal practitioner and a United States-based Ghanaian professor, Kwaku Asare has stated that a person’s current status in Parliament does not restrict their status in a future Parliament.
To that end, he has asked pundits not to advance questions about how a Member of Parliament’s seat could be vacated in a future Parliament following the Supreme Court ruling on the vacant seat case.
In a post on his Facebook page, he cautioned analysts to be careful because nobody has said that a seat will be vacated in a future parliament.
The future parliament angle is misleading, he wrote on his Facebook page.
The Supreme Court has by a 5-2 majority decision upheld the suit filed by Alexander Afenyo-Markin. The apex court said the full reasons will be made available tomorrow Wednesday, November 13.
The suit filed by Afenyo-Markin brought a stalemate in Parliament as the NDC members assumed the Majority position based on the Speaker’s ruling. This prompted the New Patriotic Party Members of Parliament to boycott proceedings of the House.
With the latest ruling by the Supreme Court, Parliament is expected to be recalled with the NDC MPs reverting to their original Minority status.
Prof Asare in his post said “one’s current status in Parliament does not impose restrictions on their status in a future Parliament.”
He added “The Court’s judgment is not out. I have read that it’s a 5-2 decision. I won’t be surprised if this turns out to be only partly right. This is because a judge who rules that there is no jurisdiction typically does not cast a vote on the substantive matter. If this thinking prevails, then what we are likely going to have is a 5-2; 5-0 decision. That is, 5-2 on jurisdiction, and 5-0 on the substantive matter. Second, I’ve read some pundits raise questions about how an MP’s seat could be vacated in a future Parliament. Based on this, they have questioned the Court’s decision. Let us be careful. Nobody has said that a seat will be vacated in a future parliament. The future parliament angle is a red herring.
What the court might say, based on a holistic reading of article 97(1)(g) and (h) is:
- An MP shall vacate his seat
- If he switches sides
- And seeks to remain in parliament in that new status.
In other words, MPs can’t change the general election verdict by switching sides.
Illustrations:
- Parliament is 50-50. X, a member of the Blue party, switches to the Green Party and seeks to remain in parliament so that Parliament is now 49-51.
No! X is not allowed to do that and he must vacate his seat. If he is a partisan MP, he’s caught by article 97(1)(g). If he’s an independent, he’s caught by article 97(1)(h).
- Parliament is 50-50. X, a member of the Blue party files his nomination on the ticket of the Green Party and seeks to enter the next parliament in that Green color. Parliament is still 50-50.
Yes. X is allowed to do that and he needs not vacate his seat. Article 97 does not care about what one plans to do in a future parliament!!
A test that will not fail you is whether the MP’s action has changed the election verdict (in this example the 50-50). If no, article 97(1)(g)&(h) are not triggered.
“The bottom line is everyone, including an incumbent MP, is free to contest on any platform in a future election. MPs are not mandated to run on the same ticket in the future and are not required to vacate their seats merely because they want to enter a new parliament in a new jersey. To hold otherwise, will be to say once voters elect an MP, they also shrink the option set available to the MP-elect in the next parliament. That will be the worst thing to do in a democracy.
On a final note, GOGO applauds the EC’s decision to restart the ballot printing process. As we said then, the halting was unnecessary and we are glad it’s back on track. Further, the ballot order is fixed. #SALL is the cardinal sin of the 8th Parliament.”
