The suspension of four Members of Parliament (MPs) by Speaker Alban Bagbin following a tumultuous vetting session on January 30, 2025, has ignited a fierce debate on parliamentary authority and due process. Vincent Ekow Assafuah, MP for Old Tafo, has emerged as a vocal critic of the suspension, arguing that the Speaker’s action lacks any legal or constitutional basis and sets a dangerous precedent for the future of Ghanaian parliamentary proceedings. The affected MPs, including both Majority and Minority Chief Whips, Frank Annoh-Dompreh and Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor respectively, along with Alhassan Sulemana Tampuli and Jerry Ahmed Shaib, were suspended for their alleged involvement in the chaotic scenes that marred the vetting session. While Speaker Bagbin defended the suspension as a necessary disciplinary measure to restore order in the house, Assafuah contends that the Speaker overstepped his authority and acted unilaterally without regard for established parliamentary procedures.
At the heart of Assafuah’s critique is the assertion that the Speaker’s decision contravenes the Standing Orders of Parliament, specifically Order 130, which outlines the procedures for suspending MPs. According to Assafuah, Order 130 stipulates specific durations for suspensions – four, eight, and twelve days – and provides no provision for a two-week suspension, as imposed by the Speaker. This deviation from established procedure, Assafuah argues, undermines the legitimacy of the suspension and raises concerns about the Speaker’s adherence to the rules governing parliamentary conduct. He emphasizes that the Speaker’s actions are not only procedurally flawed but also represent an unprecedented overreach of power, as there is no legal basis, within the constitution or parliamentary standing orders, that grants the Speaker the authority to unilaterally suspend MPs.
Furthermore, Assafuah criticizes the manner in which the Speaker handled the situation, accusing him of conflating the roles of judge, complainant, and decision-maker. This, he argues, violates the principles of natural justice and due process, which require a fair and impartial hearing before any disciplinary action is taken. By acting as both the accuser and the judge, the Speaker, according to Assafuah, denied the affected MPs a fair opportunity to defend themselves and present their side of the story. This concentration of power in the hands of the Speaker, Assafuah warns, sets a dangerous precedent that could be exploited in the future to silence dissenting voices and stifle parliamentary debate.
Assafuah’s argument rests on the premise that the rule of law and adherence to due process are essential for the proper functioning of a democratic parliament. He emphasizes that while he does not condone the unruly behavior displayed by the MPs during the vetting session, the need to maintain order should not come at the expense of established legal procedures. He contends that the Speaker’s actions, by circumventing due process, undermine the very principles of fairness and accountability that Parliament is supposed to uphold. The arbitrary exercise of power, he argues, erodes public trust in the institution and sets a dangerous precedent for future disputes.
While acknowledging the seriousness of the disruptions that occurred during the vetting session, Assafuah insists that the proper course of action would have been to follow the established disciplinary procedures outlined in the Standing Orders. This would have involved a formal complaint, an investigation into the incident, and a fair hearing before any disciplinary measures were taken. By bypassing these procedures, Assafuah argues, the Speaker not only violated the rights of the affected MPs but also undermined the integrity of the parliamentary process. He maintains that the pursuit of order and discipline should not come at the cost of fundamental legal principles.
In conclusion, Assafuah’s criticism of the Speaker’s actions centers on the perceived lack of legal basis for the suspension, the violation of established parliamentary procedures, and the denial of due process to the affected MPs. He argues that the Speaker’s unilateral decision sets a dangerous precedent that could undermine the principles of fairness, accountability, and the rule of law within Parliament. He calls for a greater adherence to due process and a reaffirmation of the legal framework that governs parliamentary conduct, emphasizing that the pursuit of order should not come at the expense of fundamental rights and established legal procedures.
