The debate over the constitutionality of petitions seeking to declare the seats of Members of Parliament (MPs) vacant has become a significant issue in Ghana’s parliamentary and political discourse.
At the center of this debate is Hon. Samuel Hon. Atta Akyea, the Member of Parliament for Abuakwa South.
He has weighed in on the matter, offering an in-depth explanation of his stance on the petition to declare the seats of four MPs vacant.
This situation stems from questions regarding whether the MPs in question are bound by their current party affiliations or if their declarations of intent for future political ambitions render them liable for dismissal under constitutional provisions.
In his statement, Atta Akyea made it clear that a distinction should be made between an MP’s current status and their future political intentions.
He believes that the issue at hand relates to a matter of future political declarations rather than current actions. He offered a nuanced perspective on the petition.
“These members of parliament are addressing their future intentions. They’ve not said as [of] now, they want to abandon where they are for any other direction.”
Hon. Samuel Hon. Atta Akyea the Member of Parliament for Abuakwa South
Current vs. Future Political Intentions
The crux of Atta Akyea’s argument lies in distinguishing between the present status of an MP and their future political intentions.
“For example, the second deputy speaker is an indication that I’m an independent candidate, but for the next election, I intend to be on the ticket of the New Patriotic Party.”
Hon. Samuel Hon. Atta Akyea the Member of Parliament for Abuakwa South
Hon. Atta Akyea went on to stress that declarations of future intent should not disqualify MPs from serving their current terms. He explained that as long as MPs have not crossed the floor during the ongoing parliamentary session, there are no legal grounds to declare their seats vacant.
“What if what they even might have wanted to do, I mean, they want to change their minds? Is the parliament going to declare a seat vacant [based] on the feelings and the thinking of the members of parliament?”
Hon. Samuel Hon. Atta Akyea the Member of Parliament for Abuakwa South
He further clarified that merely stating one’s future political intentions does not amount to crossing the floor in the present parliamentary session.
“They are not saying that in this parliament, we were sponsored by NPP or we came independent, and in this parliament, we want to go to another party or stand independent.’’
Hon. Samuel Hon. Atta Akyea the Member of Parliament for Abuakwa South
The Precedent of Speaker Mike Oquaye’s 2020 Ruling
He disagreed with this ruling, calling it a misinterpretation of the constitutional provisions.
“In 2020, a sitting member of parliament, who came by way of the ticket of the NPP, declared that he was going to contest as an independent. So that is why I believe that Speaker Mike Ocquaye declared that by reason of his overt acts and him taking a stand, I mean, that is the end of the matter.”
Hon. Samuel Hon. Atta Akyea the Member of Parliament for Abuakwa South
However, Hon. Atta Akyea made it clear that he believes Speaker Oquaye’s ruling was inappropriate.
“If it’s an error, and I believe it’s in clear error of the constitution, we are not bound by his decision. There is no law [that says that what the previous speaker did if it’s in error, should have relevance for the now moment.”
Hon. Samuel Hon. Atta Akyea the Member of Parliament for Abuakwa South
The Constitution and the Act of Crossing the Floor
Hon. Atta Akyea emphasized that the constitutional provision relating to MPs crossing the floor applies to current actions within the parliamentary session, not declarations of future intent.
According to him, Article 97 of the Constitution only becomes relevant when an MP physically crosses the floor during an ongoing parliamentary session, which is not the case with the MPs in question.
“I believe that if you read the whole thing that Speaker Mike Ocquaye delivered, I believe he was wrong, because what I understand the constitution to be saying is that, today you cross carpet when the parliament is in session, not when it’s been dissolved, and you join another party post the elections.”
Hon. Samuel Hon. Atta Akyea the Member of Parliament for Abuakwa South
Distinguishing Between Physical and Future Crossing of the Floor
He argued that the constitutional provision applies to the former, not the latter.
“There is a cross-carpeting which, is physical in the sense that while you were in this party and joined the others, that was the essence of Article 97. But I don’t believe that if you make a declaration of intent that you are a sitting member of parliament… but in the next elections, you intend to join another party, it should mean vacating your seat.”
…You are making the MP [so]robotic that he can’t tell you his intentions for the future. Relating to the session of parliament, if you should cross carpet, and I believe Article 97 will have relevance.”
Hon. Samuel Hon. Atta Akyea the Member of Parliament for Abuakwa South
Legal and Constitutional Clarity Needed
In conclusion, Hon. Atta Akyea’s statement highlighted the need for legal and constitutional clarity regarding the status of MPs who declare future political intentions.
He firmly believes that such declarations should not be grounds for declaring seats vacant, as long as MPs remain loyal to their current affiliations during the ongoing parliamentary session.
He also called for a distinction between Speaker Mike Ocquaye’s ruling and the present situation, noting that the two cases are not analogous.
His perspective adds a critical voice to the ongoing debate over parliamentary seats and constitutional interpretation in Ghana.
READ ALSO; Up-and-Coming Artists Urged to Prioritize Local Languages Over English
