Why are they going after the Speaker? So the Speaker should hire you Dame to represent the Speaker in court where the two of you differ on the issue? This only makes sense to Godfred Dame.
U see joy news are not happy for the right education! Their application have been decline! What else do u want to insinuates!! U see the problem! If the Speaker had been from the government side, do u think, they would have hired another lawyer? The AG would definitely be the defender! And they will always call biased kpebu, call unbiased people to educate Ghanaians!!!!!
A simple question that can resolve the present controversy in Parliament in respect of the four vacation of parliamentary seats. Question: *When should a Member of Parliament vacate his seat. Is it during his present term in office or during his probable future term in office, should he win the future election?* Article 97 clause 1, paragraphs g and h of the constitution of Ghana. 1) A member of Parliament shall vacate his seat in parliament - (g) if he leaves the party of which he was a member at the time of his election to Parliament to join another party or seeks to remain in Parliament as an independent member; or (h) if he was elected a member of Parliament as an independent candidate and joins a political party. If it is argued that the member of parliament must not vacate his present seat but rather vacate a future seat if he probably wins a future election, then it would imply that, immediately he is declared a member of parliament in future, he must immediately vacate his seat, so that another election is organized for him to probably win again. This view would amount to causing other parliamentary candidates (including the political party candidates to contest the same elections twice) and to what end? If this view is upheld, it would also imply that a member of parliament who becomes the Speaker of Parliament, must not vacate his present seat in parliament but rather vacate a probable future seat in parliament. It would also imply that upon dissolution of parliament, members should vacate their probable future parliamentary seats. *Second follow-up question* In the context of this discussion, at which point, can it be conclusive that a member of parliament has either left his political party or joined a political party (if he was initially independent) ? *Answer to question two* The time of leaving the political party or joining one (if he was independent) occurs before the end of the present term of parliament. The time of filing for candidacy with the Electoral Commission is therefore reasonably conclusive as the time that he has left his political party or joined a political party (if he was independent). *Final question* Should a political party be the only one to report that a person is no longer a member of the party? *Answer* In this context, any citizen can point out or report a wrongdoing *Summary* Article 97 is clear that the parliamentary seat to be vacated is the present seat and not a future probabilistic seat. The time of filing for candidacy with the Electoral Commission contrary to his "present status in parliament" is therefore the reasonable conclusive evidence that a member of parliament has either left his party, or joined a party (if he was independent); *and must therefore vacate his seat with immediate effect*.
How low are we willing to go as a country? It’s very sad witnessing current happenings in the country. A totalitarian government will exploit every loophole in the constitution to its advantage. Ghana urgently needs a constitutional review!
This illegality must be dealt with by law in order to bring the alleged criminal to book. This "illegal" speaker is a blight to the rule of law. Was he not also involved with the double salaries case and the trotro ambulances?
It will be problematic to allow an attorney general alone to offer his legal view or opinion on matters of constitution especially in situations where there are varying stakeholders with divergent views and interests. This current parliament, the Speaker's position and the position of the Government through the Attorney General offer an example of such conflict. How could an Attorney General appointed by a President in our current political dispensation claim his legal opinion alone should feed into decisions of proper interpretations of the constitution?
