Parliament unable to continue approval of President’s Ministerial nominations – Speaker Bagbin

Parliament unable to continue approval of President’s Ministerial nominations – Speaker Bagbin. Speaker of Parliament Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin on Wednesday said Parliament was unable to consider the President’s Ministerial nominations in the “spirit of upholding the rule of law.”

“Be that as it may, Honourable Members, I also bring to your attention, the receipt of a process from the Courts titled Rockson-Nelson Etse K. Dafeamekpor vrs. The Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney -General ( Suit no. J1/12/2024) which process was served on the 19th of March 2024 and an injunction motion on notice seeking to restrain the Speaker from proceeding with the vetting and approval of the names of the persons submitted by His Excellency the President until the provisions of the constitution are satisfied,” Speaker Bagbin stated in a formal communication to the House.

“Members in the light of this process, the House is unable to continue to consider the nominations of His Excellency the President in the “spirit of upholding the rule of law “ until after the determination of the application for interlocutory injunction by the Supreme Court.”

Speaker Bagbin’s formal communication to the House was in response to a letter issued by the Executive Secretary to the President, Nana Asante Bediatuo, addressed to the Clerk to Parliament, which letter was clearly in the Speaker’s opinion contemptuous of Parliament.

The Speaker said the letter outlined that the Clerk ought to “cease and desist” from attempting to transmit the Human Sexual Values Bill, 2021 to the President for necessary action accordance with the Constitution.

He noted that in the said letter, the Executive Secretary indicated that the Office of the President was aware of two pending applications for an order of interlocutory injunction seeking to restrain the Clerk and Parliament from transmitting the Bill to the President.

He reiterated that itfurther indicated that the Attorney General had on 18 March 2024 informed the President that he had received the two applications and had advised the President not to take any step in relation to the Bill until matters raised by the suit are determined by the Supreme Court.

He said as a result, the Presidency conveyed to the Clerk that it was unable to accept the transmission of the Bill.

“My attention has also been drawn to the 18 March, 2024, letter from the Honourable Attorney General being referred to by the Executive Secretary to the President, Nana Asante Bediatuo above,” he said.

“In the said letter, I note that the Attorney- General used the phrase “…I will respectfully advice that a decision to assent to the Bill be made after the determination of the application for interlocutory injunction…”.and not an advice to the President not to receive the Bill from Parliament.”

Speaker Bagbin said it was therefore interesting that in view of this clear and unambiguous advice from the Attorney- General to the President, the Presidency has taken this decision.

He said several critical points emerge that underscored the importance of adhering to constitutional and legal frameworks within our democratic governance.

The Speaker, said firstly, the President’s refusal to accept the transmission of the Bill was, by all accounts, not supported by the constitutional and statutory provisions that guide our legislative process.

He said the Constitution clearly delineated the steps to be followed once a bill has been passed by Parliament, mandating the transmission of the bill to the President for assent or rejection.

He said the refusal to even accept the Bill for consideration falls outside the legal bounds established by the national constitutional framework.

“It is incumbent upon the President to accept the bill and take the necessary action within the prescribed constitutional limits, whether that action is assent, refusal, or referral to the Council of State for advice,” he said.

“It is instructive to note that the Executive, has in the past proceeded with its actions, although, there has been pending before the court, injunction application against the State.”

He said secondly, there must be a steadfast rejection of any attempts to unduly fetter or hinder the work of Parliament.

He said the Parliament of Ghana operated as a crucial part of the nation’s democracy, embodying the would and voice of the people.

He said any efforts to obstruct its work disrespected this fundamental institution and threatens the principles of governance by consent and representation.

Speaker Bagbin said it was imperative to remain vigilant against setting dangerous precedents that could potentially undermine the foundation of our democracy.

He said the rejection of a bill’s transmission without constitutional basis introduced a precarious deviation from established democratic practices and norms.

He said such actions, if left unchallenged, may embolden future attempts to circumvent the legislative process, thereby weakening the integrity and efficacy of the nation’s democratic institutions.

He said in alignment with their constitutional mandates and the principles of good governance, it was essential for the President to adhere to the lawful course of action by accepting the transmission of the Bill.

He said upon receipt, the President had the constitutionally provided options to assent to the Bill, refuse it, or seek further consultation, as deemed necessary.

“As we move forward, it is the collective responsibility of all branches of government, and indeed all citizens, to uphold the constitution and ensure that our democratic practices are not only preserved but strengthened,” he said

He said the current impasse presents an opportunity for reflection and reaffirmation of our commitment to the principles of democracy, rule of law, and the unequivocal respect for the legislative process that forms the bedrock of our nation’s governance.

“I reiterate that the refusal to even accept the bill for consideration falls outside the legal bounds established by our constitutional framework.”

He noted that it was incumbent upon the President to accept the Bill and take the necessary action within the prescribed constitutional limits, whether that action was assent, refusal, or referral to the Council of State for advice.

He said Article 106(7) says “Where a bill passed by Parliament is presented to the President for assent, he shall signify within seven days after the presentation, to the Speaker that he assets to the bill or that he refuses to assent to bill, unless the bill has been referred by the President to the Council of State under article 90 of this Constitution”.

“The Parliament of Ghana will comply with the existing legal framework and reject the attempts by the Executive Secretary of the President, through his contemptuous letter, to instruct the Clerk to Parliament, an Officer of Parliament whose position is recognizably under the Constitution. We shall not cease and desist!”

Source: GNA