Private legal practitioner Kofi Bentil has argued that a decision in this parliament that only takes effect in the next cannot be allowed to disrupt this parliament.
He said this in reaction to the ruling of the Speaker of Parliament which declared four seats vacant, a ruling which has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court by a 5-2 majority decision upheld the suit filed by Alexander Afenyo-Markin. The two dissenting justices thought the apex court did not have jurisdiction over this matter.
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.
Following this Supreme Court order, another private legal practitioner and a United States-based Ghanaian professor, Kwaku Asare (Prof Azar) 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.
Reacting to Prof Asare’s comment, Kofi Bentil, also Vice President of IMANI Africa said “I agree with my brother Kwaku Azar but I need him to admit that he has come to my position. Dear Kwaku Azar
Can you now say clearly that you agree with me? These are the points I’ve been making all along
“First, that there was jurisdiction because there was a clear issue of interpretation. You said no, it’s only been wrapped up as an interpretation issue. Soon everyone agreed that there was an interpretation issue and so there is jurisdiction!
Second, I insisted that the Speaker was constitutionally bound by his oath to respect the SC injunction. That parliament was not above the SC on interpretation and this was not about parliamentary procedure. I’m not sure what you said about that.
“Thirdly, I argued that a decision in this parliament which only takes effect in the next cannot be allowed to disrupt this parliament.
I added that the candidates were bound by the electoral timetable to file nominations during this term and that was a matter of necessity because there was no other way to file later. I said that the doctrine of necessity was that what is necessary is lawful and so the seats were not vacated. You said that will collapse all law… remember?”
Below is his full post…
I agree with my brother Kwaku Azar but I need him to admit that he has come to my position.
Dear Kwaku Azar
Can you now say clearly that you agree with me?
These are the points I’ve been making all along
First
that there was jurisdiction because there was a clear issue of interpretation. You said no, it’s only been wrapped up as an interpretation issue. Soon everyone agreed that there’s an interpretation issue and so there is jurisdiction!
Second
I insisted that the Speaker was constitutionally bound by his oath to respect the SC injunction.
That parliament was not above the SC on interpretation and this was not about parliamentary procedure.
I’m not sure what you said about that.
Thirdly
I argued that a decision in this parliament that only takes effect in the next cannot be allowed to disrupt this parliament.
I added that the candidates were bound by the electoral timetable to file nominations during this term and that was a matter of necessity because there was no other way to file later.
I said that the doctrine of necessity was that what is necessary is lawful and so the seats were not vacated.
You said that will collapse all law… remember?
I argued that the meaning of crossing the carpet or vacating a seat should
Not be stretched to cover necessary acts which are protected by the fundamental right of free association.
I added that unless the person expressly declared he’s left his party, he should not be deemed to have vacated the seat etc.
I admit that you’ve put it more eloquently but you agree that these were my arguments all along.
