MP Unhappy With Repeated Swearing In Of Speaker As President

The swearing in of the Speaker of Parliament, Professor Aaron Mike Oquaye again as president this morning, has provoked the Member of Parliament for Akatsi South and the Vice Chairman of The Parliamentary Select Committee on Subsidiary Legislation, Bernard Ahiafor to make some legal arguments in support of the stands taken by a former Speaker of Parliament, Edward Doe Adjaho.

In the sixth Parliament, a former Speaker of Parliament, Edward Doe Adjaho, took a position that, The President and The Vice President will take and subscribe to The  Presidential Oath once even the Vice President is going to take and subscribe oath once, in acting position but not each time he would have to act in that capacity.

Mr. Adjaho's position generated a lot of public debate and ended up in the Supreme Court for interpretation. 

In its ruling, the Supreme Court said The Speaker of Parliament must take and subscribe to the oath in relation to the office of the President each time the speaker would have to act in the absence of both The President and The Vice President or in the event they are  unable to perform their functions.

In relation to the said Supreme Court judgement and in compliance and obedience to it, though the current Speaker, professor Aaron Mike Oquaye was just sworn in last Sunday, January 21, 2018 when the need arose, he's again going to take and subscribe to the same oath (amended version) in the same words which he did less than a week ago. 

In an interview with Francis Edzorna Mensah on the subject matter, Mr. Ahiafor said, Ghana is a Democratic state govern by tenets of the rule of law and by that, there is supremacy of the law.

According to him, The Constitution which is the supreme law of the land above and beyond which no further law exist spells out in Article 60 clause (8) and (11) as well as clause (12) states what should happen in the circumstances.

Article 60(8), Whenever the President is absent from Ghana or is for any other reason unable to perform the functions of his office, the Vice-President shall perform the function of the President until the President returns or is able to perform.

(11) Where the President and the Vice-President are both unable to perform the functions of the President, the Speaker of Parliament shall perform those functions until the President or the Vice-President is able to perform those functions or a new President assumes office, as the case may be.

12) The Speaker shall, before commencing to perform the functions of the President clause (11) of this article, take and subscribe the oath set out in relation to the office of President.

He noted that, "there are clear constitutional argument to the effect that, The President subscribe to the oath of office as set out in relation to the office of The President once, during his tenure of office as President, so also is the case for The Vice President.


By article 60(8) of the 1992, as quoted above.

He (The Vice President) must take and subscribe to the oath set out in the constitution in relation to the office of The President".

"It's clear and unambiguous that by practice, The Vice President takes and subscribes to this oath once for all times that, he will act as President in the absence of The President or when he is unable to perform the functions".

In the case of The Speaker of Parliament, acting as President when both The President and The Vice President are unable to perform their functions are regulated by article 60(11) and (12), The MP stated.

The issue therefore, is whether or not the Speaker should take or subscribe to the oath set out in the constitution in relation to the office of The President once or each time the situation arises for him to so act? He post a question.

Last Sunday, though Parliament was on recess, because of the swearing in of the speaker, all MPs were called from recess from their various constituencies at the cost/expense of the taxpayer. 

On this note, Lawyer Ahiafor said, on Saturday,  January 28, 2018, when some MPs may have programs and activities, they would  have to come to Parliament again for the swearing in of the speaker, adding that, "an exercise that was carried out less than a week but would have to be done again, says by the supreme court".

According to him, since, the disobedience of the Supreme Court order or directive constitutes a high crime under Article 2(4) of the 1992 constitution, and Parliament and the country for that matter would have to comply and swear in the speaker one hundred (100) times if the need arises.

Won't it be better that, in the interest of the public and in line with public policy, the Speaker will take and subscribe to the oath in relation to the office of the President once to take care of the situation each time he's going to act as President in the absence or each time both the President and the Vice President unable to perform. Mr. Ahaifor queried. 

"The Law lies in the bosom of the judges particularly, the Supreme Court judges". The Vice Chairman of The Parliamentary Select Committee on Subsidiary Legislation, Bernard Ahiafor concluded. 

Story by Francis Edzorna Mensah.

GBCONLINE
---DECRYPTED---