Ahiafor defends Minority Group’s stand on the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Parliament
According to him as members of the Minority Group, they will at all-times ensure that Parliament operates within the ambit and the dictates of the constitution of the republic of Ghana which they have sworn an oath to defend and protect.
The Ranking Member on Parliamentary Select Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs and the Member of Parliament (MP) for the Akatsi South constituency, Bernard Ahiafor, has defended the actions by the Minority Group in Parliament to implement to the letter the recent Supreme Court ruling on the matter of quorum to do public business in Parliament.
According to him as members of the Minority Group, they will at all-times ensure that Parliament operates within the ambit and the dictates of the constitution of the republic of Ghana which they have sworn an oath to defend and protect.
“We need to respect the decision of the Supreme Court as a democratic nation; Supreme Court Judges will not come to parliament to ensure that their decision is implemented to the letter, it is, therefore, incumbent upon some of us as MPs to ensure that we follow the decision of the Supreme Court. I personally believe that when a procedure is set down for a right to be exercised it is that procedure would have to be followed in exercising the right”.
In an interview with ghananewsonline.com.gh, Lawyer Ahiafor submitted that, with clear interpretation of the Supreme Court, “if we don’t have the one-third of members present we can’t commence Parliamentary business, further, if we don’t have the majority of members present we can’t vote and take a decision as parliament”.
Speaking on recent developments in the Chamber where the Minority has on two occasions raised the issue of quorum leading to a stoppage of public business on some critical matters The MP noted, “The Supreme Court is the apex Court of the land and the Supreme Court is the highest, above and beyond no other court exists, to the law, it says lies within the bosom of the judge” and maintained that, “The Law is what the judge to say, it is. The Framers of the 1992 Constitution in their own wisdom vest exclusive jurisdiction to interpret the constitution to the Supreme Court. So apart from the Supreme Court, no other Court is constitutionally vested with jurisdiction to interpret the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana”.
In the case of Justice Abdulai Vrs The Attorney-General, The Supreme Court on the 9th day of March, 2022, gave a clear interpretation to the article 102 and 104 of the 1992 constitution of the Republic of Ghana as well as the Order 109 of the Standing Orders of The Parliament of the Republic of Ghana when called upon it, and “by that interpretative explanation of the Supreme Court, in it clear and apparent that Parliament of the Republic of Ghana at Commencement of public Business needs one third of the Members Present at the chamber, that is quorum for commencement and this quorum excludes a person presiding, thus by article 102 and then by article 104 of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana says Parliament of The Republic of Ghana needs majority of all Members of Parliament to be present in order to make a decision so therefore, it be unconstitutional for Parliament of the Republic of Ghana, according to the Supreme Court of Ghana to commence business without one third of members to form a quorum”.
He again stressed the fact that “it will also be unconstitutional to take a decision or vote on any issue that needed to be voted on when we do not have the majority of the 275 MPs present at the chamber and by calculation majority is 138 members present”.
By Edzorna Francis Mensah
