Confusion Over New Constituencies

Mathew Opoku Prempeh, MP for Manhyia

A FORMER Deputy Attorney-General under the Kufuor administration has warned that the Mills administration’s moves to rail-road a new legislation seeking to create new constituencies around the country through Parliament can create “chaos” in Ghana before or after the December elections.

Kwame Osei-Prempeh, who is also the Member of Parliament (MP) for Nsuta-Kwamang-Beposo and chairman of the Subsidiary Legislation of Parliament, said Ghanaians should hold Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, chairman of Electoral Commission (EC), responsible if any trouble resulted from his defiant attempt to create the intended 45 new constituencies.

Speaking in an interview yesterday after Majority leader Cletus Avoka laid a Constitutional Instrument (CI), Representation of the People (Parliamentary Constituencies), 2012, Osei-Prempeh indicated that there were serious legal issues to be dealt with before the constituencies were created, noting those issue were still pending.

Osei-Prempeh’s comment was a sequel to some legal issues raised on the floor of the House by MP for Manhyia Dr. Matthew Opoku Prempeh.

Citing the pendency of a judicial decision on the new constituencies at the High Court and the Supreme Court, Dr. Opoku Prempeh, popularly known as Napo, sought the “guidance” of the Speaker on the laying of Constitutional Instrument, which originated from the Electoral Commission.

Seeking the Speaker’s guidance, he quoted relevant provisions of the standing orders of the House as well as the 1992 constitution to back his view that any decision by the law-making body to receive the new Constitutional Instrument could be injurious to the interest of the party that sued the Electoral Commission over the planned creation of new constituencies ahead of the 2012 polls.

Dr. Prempeh, who is also the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP’s) director of elections, further contended that laying of the CI could prejudice the outcome of the law suit brought against the EC on the matter.

He reminded the House that a concerned citizen had filed a suit at the High Court, requesting the EC, as it is enjoined by the 1992 constitution, to publish in the Gazette, procedures and criteria it was using to create the constituencies.

According to him, the EC, through one of its Deputy Commissioners, Kwadwo Sarfo Kantanka, had sworn an affidavit at the High Court to stay proceedings on the case, because the election governing body argued it was a constitutional matter that had to be determined by the Supreme Court.

The EC, Dr. Prempeh pointed out, had accordingly filed a motion at the highest court of the land to that effect.

He was therefore at a loss as to why the same EC would bring the CI, knowing very well that the matter was still pending at the Supreme Court awaiting determination.

The Manhyia MP alerted the House not to do anything that would be prejudicial to the case, including the laying of the CI.

Buttressing his point, Dr. Prempeh quoted Standing Order 93 (1) of the House which stated that “Reference shall not be made on any matter on which judicial decision is pending in such a way as may, in the opinion of Mr. Speaker, prejudice the interest of the parties to the action”.

But, in her ruling, Speaker Justice Joyce Bamford Addo said she did not see anything wrong with the decision to lay the document.

Just after the CI was laid, Dr. Prempeh pointed out it did not have an assigned identification number like all CIs including a recent one, CI 71, that established the biometric voters’ registration.

Even though Speaker Justice Joyce Bamford-Addo, who had to continuously use her gavel to cool flared tempers over the instrument, agreed with Dr. Prempeh, she indicated the error could be corrected at the Subsidiary Legislation Committee level.

The First Deputy Speaker, Edward Doe Adjaho, had earlier argued that Standing Order 93(1) dealt with specific provisions with regard to rules of debate in this House. “We are not talking about any debate here.

We are only laying papers so that does not come in at all. The simple issue is that Order 93(1) does not apply to the laying of papers.

We are performing our constitutional mandate by virtue of Order 77 as Hon Majority Leader rightly pointed out.

“We are not debating this for the rules of debate to be invoked on this thing. In any case, I state that nobody can prevent the laying of a paper, nobody either from the minority or majority can prevent the laying of a paper,” he concluded.

However, Second Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Prof. Mike Oquaye responded, saying, “Madam Speaker, the law which rests so firmly in your bosom continues to remind us that there can be errors or illegalities that are manifest on the face of the record.

Madam Speaker, therefore, I feel a bit disturbed when I hear that nothing can prevent the laying of a paper no matter its nature, import in any circumstances or whatsoever that Madam Speaker may rule upon.

Madam Speaker, I beg to seriously differ. Madam Speaker may simply see an attempt to do a thing which manifestly, Madam Speaker, in her bosom and wisdom may think it is legal and proper, and Madam Speaker may rule in that direction.”

By Awudu Mahama