Prof. Kwaku Azar Asare, an astute lawyer, has explained that Ghana’s anti-carpet crossing laws for Members of Parliament were established to prevent MPs elected on one party’s ticket, or as Independents, from switching allegiance to another party once in office.
According to him, these laws aim to uphold the electorate’s choice by ensuring that MPs remain loyal to the platform on which they were elected.
Prof. Asare indicated that this helps to preserve political stability and prevent sudden shifts in parliamentary alignment.
“These laws addressed a uniquely Ghanafuo issue: government tactics to lure opposition MPs, thereby destabilizing the opposition and enabling a parliamentary dominance that neared a one-party state.
Yet, these anti-carpet crossing laws were never intended to silence MPs [and] restrict their freedom to associate or join other parties in the future…”
Prof. Kwaku Azar Asare
He further explained that the anti-carpet crossing laws were not designed to grant political parties the authority to expel MPs from Parliament or to stifle the natural evolution of MPs’ personal beliefs and political principles.
Instead, these laws aim to balance party loyalty with respect for individual growth, ensuring MPs can serve with integrity while honoring the electorate’s mandate.
Prof. Asare explained that the primary purpose of these laws was to maintain the stability and integrity of Ghana’s political system by ensuring MPs remain accountable to the electorate who initially entrusted them with their mandates.
This accountability is essential for preserving public confidence in the electoral process and ensuring that representatives honor the commitments they make when elected.
According to him, the laws are intended to safeguard the decisions made by voters in the previous election, providing continuity and respect for the people’s choice.
He stressed that however, these laws are not meant to restrict the future options or choices that MPs might legitimately encounter, allowing them room to adapt as their perspectives or circumstances evolve.
Ghana’s Restrictions within Democratic Framework
Furthermore, Prof. Kofi Azar Asare emphasized that in the context of contemporary Ghana, it is essential to question whether these restrictions truly align with the nation’s democratic principles.
He suggested that it is worth examining if these laws may, in fact, overly constrain the diversity, adaptability, and dynamism that a mature democracy should ideally promote.
Such reflection, Prof. Asare argued, is necessary to ensure that the legal framework supports both stability and the healthy evolution of political representation in line with democratic ideals.
“In other countries, cross-carpeting occurs without such punitive repercussions. In the UK, MPs are free to cross the floor, join another party, or become independents without forfeiting their seats.
“Similarly, in the USA, politicians have frequently switched parties or served as independents to reflect evolving beliefs or constituency needs without facing legal barriers. Such systems respect individual choice and empower MPs to act in alignment with their principles or constituents’ demands”.
Prof. Kwaku Azar Asare
He observed that, with Ghana’s 4th Republic now reaching a stage of maturity and approaching four decades, and with political power primarily balanced between two major parties, it may be time for the country to reassess the relevance of its anti-carpet crossing laws.
Prof. Asare raised the critical question of whether these restrictions continue to serve the needs of Ghana’s democracy, or if they instead act as a barrier to developing a more representative and adaptable Parliament that can respond to the complexities of a maturing democratic system.
He argued that, as Ghana’s democracy evolves, it may be necessary to reconsider such laws to foster a more responsive and flexible legislative body. “Clearly, this is not the time to expand the contours of those narrowly tailored laws to cover areas they were never intended to address”.
In light of this, Prof. Asare suggested that the country should consider whether its legal framework genuinely upholds the democratic values it was designed to safeguard.
