STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER IN THE MATTER OF THE RECALL OF PARLIAMENT, 7th AUGUST 2024
INTRODUCTION
On 31st July 2024, the office of the Speaker received a request for a recall of Parliament to a parliamentary Meeting, pursuant to Article 112 (3) of the 1992 Constitution and Order 53 of the Standing Orders of Parliament. This request was submitted by members of the Majority side, led by Hon. Kwamena Afenyo-Markin, the Majority Leader and MP for Effutu.
The request outlined several matters alleged to be emergencies and needed urgent consideration. I was urged, as Speaker of Parliament, to recall the House, which had been adjourned sine die, a day earlier, on the 30th of July 2024.
Before I proceed to address the specifics of the request, I find it necessary to clarify certain issues related to the adjournment particularly as these have been raised by the Majority Leader, Hon Afenyo-Markin, at a Press Conference after the adjournment sine die.
DECISION TO ADJOURN THE HOUSE SINE DIE
In my capacity as the Speaker of Parliament, it is part of my duties to uphold the principles of transparency, accountability, and due process. It is also my duty to uphold the dignity and integrity of Parliament, MPs, Officers and Staff of the Parliamentary Service. I have throughout my tenure as Speaker, not only sworn but committed to doing exactly that with all my heart and with all my might.
I am therefore duty bound to clarify the circumstances surrounding the adjournment of the House on 30th July 2024 and to correct any erroneous impressions that may have arisen as a result of the adjournment and the reactions thereafter. It is vital that the facts are understood clearly, and that the dignity and integrity of this institution remains unblemished.
Firstly, I have been accused of prioritising international travel over parliamentary business and of unilaterally deciding to adjourn the House on 30th July 2024. These accusations are unfounded and are made in bad faith.
The decision to adjourn the House Sine die on 30th July 2024 was not made in isolation. This date was informed by the Parliamentary Calendar of the Fourth Session of the Eighth Parliament which calls on Parliament to adjourn at the end of the month of July. This guide was discussed on several occasions at pre-sitting meetings of the Speaker, and Leaders and agreed to, weeks before the 30th of July 2024. As the official reports, voice, and video recordings of proceedings of the House will clearly demonstrate, I consistently communicated to the House the agreed adjournment date throughout the meeting. The adjournment was neither sudden nor unilateral in this regard as evidenced by the contents of the official reports of 6th, 11th, 25th, and 26th July 2024.
It is for this purpose that the House prioritised some agenda items and I committed to sit late hours till midnight to ensure that all the prioritised businesses are completed before the House adjourned sine die on the agreed 30th July 2024. This was particularly so, because in the last week to the adjournment, both Deputy Speakers had to be unavoidably absent from the jurisdiction and I had to sit throughout the sittings, as captured by the official reports.
Admittedly, in the last three days, to the date of the adjournment, the Hon. Majority Leader proposed an extension of the meeting to the 2nd of August 2024. The Minority Leaders opposed the proposal. The Hon. Majority Leader was reminded of the commitment of Parliament to send a delegation led by the Speaker, together with the leadership, inclusive of the Majority Leader and Clerk to Parliament to attend a conference in the United States of America. This conference had been agreed to and paid for by Parliament even before the commencement of this meeting. The Speaker, Clerk to Parliament and the former Majority Leader, Hon Osei Kyei– Mensah–Bonsu, being members and Co-Chair of the International Advisory Council of the Conference had to depart earlier. The Speaker had thus committed to leave the jurisdiction on the night of the 30th July. It would mean that from the night of the 30th and the next day the 31st, the Speaker and both Deputies Speakers would have been unavoidably absent from the jurisdiction.
The Majority Leader later informed me the Second Deputy Speaker would have returned by the 29th of July to preside on the 30th of July if permitted by me. He also argued that a member could be elected to preside in the interregnum. I enquired to know whether he had discussed this with the Minority Leaders. His answer was in the Affirmative. Later enquiry reveals that his answer was inaccurate.
Further, the attention of the Majority Leader was drawn to the state and tempo of the House and the high risk of disorder, especially as, he the Majority Leader had, as leader of Ghana’s delegation to the ECOWAS Parliament, agreed to host a delocalised meeting of the ECOWAS Parliament at Winneba, without the knowledge of the Speaker or the Clerk to Parliament, from the 29th July to the 2nd of August 2024. The Majority Leader was thus visibly absent on the floor of the House, most of the 29th and 30th July 2024.
The Second Deputy Speaker never arrived as submitted by the Majority Leader until the 31st of July after the House had adjourned sine die. While a member elected could have presided in the absence of the Speaker and Deputy Speakers, it is essential to understand that the presiding member could not have effectively handled administrative matters during this period nor presided over the House to take any substantive decision.
Again, at the beginning of the year, the Leadership of the House and the Parliamentary Service Board had decided that the chamber be retrofitted in preparation for the 9th Parliament. The urgency of addressing structural defects and replacing the audio and video equipment cannot be overstated as many have witnessed the failure of the equipment and some parts of the structure of the chamber in recent times which has in some instances led to the abrupt suspension of sittings or adjournment.
If Parliament does not undertake this work now, it will face significant challenges in finishing the necessary preparations before the transition to the 9th Parliament. The Chamber of Parliament is being retrofitted, upgraded, and is unavailable for use by Parliament now.
It is important to note that the request for the recall is based on Article 112 (3) and not 113. It is not a recall on the basis of an emergency. The reasons stated in the request are misconceived and are meant to throw dust into the eyes of the unsuspecting public.
Consequently, most of the issues outlined in the request, including the motion on the $250 million Financing Agreement, are businesses before the House prior to the recess. For instance, the motion on the loan of $250 million was tabled, debated and rejected by the House prior to the adjournment of the House sine die.
At all material times, therefore, matters which have been prioritised and agreed to, including the Affirmative Action (Gender Equality) Bill were handled and passed before the adjournment sine die. Consequently, I categorically reject the erroneous impression created by the Hon. Majority Leader that my actions were unilateral or that I placed personal travel above my duties to the House and nation. The decisions taken were in the best interest of the nation, the institution of Parliament and were made with the full involvement of the leadership of Parliament.
REQUEST FOR RECALL OF THE HOUSE
The request before me was brought pursuant to Article 112 (3) of the Constitution and Order 53 of the Standing Orders of Parliament, and not Article 113, which deals with emergency matters. To reiterate, Article 112 (3) of the 1992 Constitution provides that:
“Notwithstanding any other provision in this article, fifteen percent of members of Parliament may request a meeting of Parliament and the Speaker shall, within seven days after the receipt of the request, summon Parliament.”
Similarly, Order 53 of the Standing Orders of Parliament reinforces this constitutional provision by stating that:
“Despite any other provision, fifteen per cent of Members of Parliament may request a meeting of Parliament and the Speaker shall, within seven days after the receipt of the request, summon Parliament. Parliament shall convene within seven days after the issuance of the notice of summon.”
While these provisions are clear and unambiguous, it is essential to consider the broader context in which they were intended to operate. Article 112 is designed to be invoked in normal times when Parliament is on recess and a need arises in the national interest for Parliament to address. The phrase “and the Speaker shall, within seven days after the receipt of the request, summon Parliament “ is meant to prescribe the upper limit within which the discretion of the Speaker, in taking the decision to summon Parliament can be exercised.
It should never be lost to Ghanaians that Members of Parliament serve a dual role. They are first and foremost representatives and leaders of their constituencies, charged with the responsibility of engaging with, accounting to, listening to, and addressing the needs of their constituents.
It is crucial that MPs are given time to fulfil their constituency duties, which are fundamental to the democratic process. If MPs are continually summoned back to Parliament for Meetings that could be scheduled within the regular parliamentary calendar, this balance would be disrupted, the relevance of MPs lost, and their service to the constituents ineffective and of no value.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE RECALL PROVISIONS
A literal understanding of Article 112 (3) and Order 53, without consideration for the context and purpose behind these provisions, could lead to an absurd situation where Parliament is kept in perpetual meetings. Such a scenario would undermine the very essence of parliamentary democracy, i.e. to serve the people.
Moreover, this literal understanding could be weaponised by factions within Parliament to serve partisan interests, rather than the national interest. By constantly invoking these provisions for partisan considerations, Parliament could be drawn into a state of perpetual sitting, at unnecessary cost to the nation and effectively preventing MPs from attending to their constituencies and other vital responsibilities, especially in an election year when advocacy of MPs is crucial.
The framers of the 1992 Constitution did not intend for these provisions to be used indiscriminately or in a partisan manner. Extending their application to ordinary or routine situations, as is the case with the current request, would dilute the significance of Article 112 (3) and Order 53.
A careful review of the matters outlined in the request reveals that they do not meet the threshold set by Article 112. Most of the issues, including the $250 million IDA financing agreement, were already tabled before the House prior to the adjournment on 30th July 2024. The fact that these matters were already under consideration by Parliament and, in the case of the IDA Financing Agreement, were even subjected to debate and rejected, undermines the essence of the request for a recall.
Indeed, several of the bills listed on the request are bills that are still under consideration at Committee. The official reports of 30th July show the unwillingness of even members of the Majority side to transact the same business.
The above notwithstanding, given the constitutional requirement, the Speaker is obliged to summon Parliament within seven days of receiving the request, which means by the end of 7th August 2024 given that the request was received by the office of the Speaker on the 31st of July.
Article 112 (1) of the Constitution empowers the Speaker to appoint the place for Parliament to conduct its business. Relying on this constitutional provision and noting the unavailability of the Chamber of the House as stated above, the poor state of the Accra International Conference Centre, the Speaker has a practical challenge to appoint a place suitable for a parliamentary meeting.
It is worth noting, however, that while the Constitution provides that “the Speaker shall, within seven days after the receipt of the request, summon Parliament.”, it is the Standing Orders which provides that “Parliament shall convene within seven days after the issuance of the notice of summon.”
The same Standing Orders empower the Speaker to interpret the Standing Orders in consonance with the Constitution. In this instance, the Constitution doesn’t prescribe the date for the meeting of the House after the issuance of the notice of summon.
It is my considered view that in interpreting the Orders, the Speaker must consider the context and practical realities of the situation. This approach aligns with the modern approach for interpreting statutes, which emphasises understanding the purpose and practical implications of the law.
The Speaker should not only focus on the literal text but also consider, the intent behind the Orders, the practical impact of different interpretations and the need to ensure efficient and effective parliamentary procedures.
Due to the ongoing renovation works in the chamber, and the period required to recondition the AICC, adhering strictly to the requirement of the Standing Orders that Parliament convene within seven days after the notice is issued would impose significant practical challenges. With the chamber under renovation, finding an alternative venue on short notice would be impractical, costly, and an unnecessary strain on Parliament and public funds.
The Speaker must weigh the broader context, such as the current logistical realities, to make an informed decision that aligns with the overarching principles of good governance and democratic integrity. This method ensures that interpretations are practically viable and reflective of contemporary needs.
To address these practical concerns, and to allow sufficient time for preparations, as I intimated several times to the House before the adjournment sine die, I summon Parliament to meet on Tuesday, 3rd of September 2024, at a place and venue to be communicated as soon as one becomes available. Order 53 cannot therefore be fully complied with.
I assure the general public that I remain committed to my Oath to inter alia “faithfully and consciously discharge my duties as Speaker of Parliament”.
Report by : PKB
