A Presidential Staffer Mr Dennis Miracles Aboagye has said that several people he has spoken to on the anti-gay bill have not read the entire document.
He says even several Members of Parliament (MPs) have not seen the final draft bill.
“80 percent of people I talked to haven’t read the bill… Some MPs may not have seen the final draft,” he said on the Key Points on TV3 Saturday, March 23.
He further stated that “nobody, whether in the NPP or the NDC accepts gayism but people have issues with the bill, that is why they have gone to court, they are not against the passage of the bill, they are against aspects of the bill.”
Also commenting on the issue, Private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu said President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo is right in not signing the anti-gay bill because the matter is in court.
Kpebu said that Mr Akufo-Addo has his full support in refusing to assent to the bill.
He further noted that both the president and the speaker are talking about what the law says to justify their actions relative to the bill therefore the issues cannot be a tit-for-tat affair.
“I am largely in favour of the current situation, it is shaping our democracy well. From time to time you need a bit of confrontation…when you have a president that hardly listens to the populace you will need things like this to put him in checks. This is really good,” he also said on the Key Points on TV3 Saturday, March 23.
“It is not a tit for tat…on the face of it you may think so but when you go deeper you will find out that both speaker and Akufo-Addo are talking law that when a matter is in court don’t do anything that will make the case a foolish case
“In this case the president is right, he has my support 130% when he says the case in is in court so he cannot sign,” Kpebu said.
On Wednesday, March 20, the Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin said that Parliament would not consider the ministerial nominees of President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo until after the Supreme Court has finished hearing the suit against the anti-gay bill.
The speaker said this on the floor of Parliament on Wednesday, March 20 while responding to the letter written to the House by the President’s Secretary Nana Bediatuo Asante asking the Clerk of parliament not to remit the bill to the president.
“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. 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.
“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!
“Be that as it may, Hon 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.
“Hon. 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,” he said.
But in a statement, the Majority Leader said “The upshot is that Mr Speaker has torpedoed the Government’s work by depriving the President and Ghana of the able men and women who will assist him in running the Government machinery. It is our humble belief that it is the Speaker who is undermining our democracy and not Mr President.”
Below is his full statement…
STATEMENT BY THE MAJORITY IN PARLIAMENT CONCERNING RT HON SPEAKER BAGBIN’S SOLE AND ARBITRARY DECISION TO ADJOURN THE HOUSE SINE DIE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT’S MINISTERIAL NOMINEES AND THE ABANDONMENT OF OTHER GOVERNMENT BUSINESSES
1. Today, the 20th day of March 2024, is a sad day for our democracy by reason of the arbitrary decision of Rt Hon Speaker Bagbin, who was visibly annoyed that a letter from the Office of the President informing the House about the injunctive processes in the Supreme Court relating to the transmission of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Value Bill 2024, is an affront to the dignity of Parliament and subversive of Ghana’s democratic process.
2. The letter emanating from the Office of the President and under the hand of Nana Bediatuo Asante, Secretary to the President, in substance, pointed to the fact that the President, having regard to the pending Suit number J1/9/2024, Richard Sky v The Parliament of Ghana and the Attorney General and Suit number J1/13/2023, Dr Amanda Odoi v The Attorney General and the Speaker of Parliament in the Supreme Court with their injunctive process, and that the House should not transmit the Human Sexual Rights and Family Value Bill 2024 to the President.
3. The spirit of the President’s letter is conclusive that the President is constitution-minded and will not undermine the Supreme Court of Ghana in its sacred role of administering justice. The President was in no way being dictatorial in his communication to Parliament given the fact that the content of the letter was not binding on Mr Speaker.
4. Mr Speaker, who has been out of the jurisdiction since Monday, occupied the Chair this evening and used his high office to attack the President, who could not answer in the Chamber. Mr Speaker did not mince words at all in stating that the letter emanating from the Office of the President is an affront to Parliament and a contumacious behaviour of the President. This, and the President’s previous conduct, Mr Speaker forcefully argues, undermines the authority of Parliament and democratic governance
The Majority asserts in no uncertain terms that the President was being law-abiding by reason of the injunctive processes pending before the Supreme Court. Moreover, the President did not undermine the powers of the Supreme Court so as to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
6. On every interpretation and permutation, the letter from the Office of the President did not undermine the authority of Parliament as wrongly alleged by Mr Speaker. Needless to say, the President’s letter did not breach any provision of the Constitution and significantly, Mr Speaker could not misconstrue the same as a continuous attempt by the Executive to subvert the constitutional order.
7. It is a matter of regret that Mr Speaker arbitrarily and capriciously, and on his own motion, adjourned the House indefinitely without the House considering the Ministerial Nominees who have been vetted and reports on them duly laid for the consideration of the House. The Rt Hon Speaker premised his decision on a monumental error that in Suit numbered J1/12/2024, filed on the 18th day of March 2024 between Rockson- Nelson Etse K. Dafeamekpor v the Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney-General, an injunction has been filed in the Supreme Court restraining him and the House from vetting, considering, and approving the President’s Ministerial Nominees. Even a casual reading of that Supreme Court action is clear that the Dafeamekpor action and the injunctive process related to what he conceived as revoked ministers who have been reshuffled into new ministries.
8. It beggars belief that our distinguished Speaker could not, or did not want to, appreciate what has been filed in the Supreme Court and which is very unconnected with the President’s Ministerial Nominees who have been vetted and are waiting for the House to approve their nominations. The gargantuan contradiction of Mr Speaker is that, while he accuses Mr President of respecting mere injunction applications, he will respect a mere injunction application whether or not it touches on Parliament’s work.
9. The upshot is that Mr Speaker has torpedoed the Government’s work by depriving the President and Ghana of the able men and women who will assist him in running the Government machinery. It is our humble belief that it is the Speaker who is undermining our democracy and not Mr President.
10. The decision of Mr Speaker to adjourn the House without recourse to its members, especially the Leadership, is most arbitrary, capricious, and undemocratic. The settled practice has always been that the Leadership of the House guide the Chair to conduct the Business of the House. However, The Speaker aborted the work of the House when the following matters, of which he was aware, were pending as Business of the day:
Tax waivers
Laying of papers
Consideration of bills
Outstanding IDA facility and
Approval of Ministerial Nominees
11. The consequences are clear that the economy will suffer and Government business will be undermined because of the pleasure of one man.
12. The NDC minority, who are in a ferbile mood to come to power, are very excited and supportive of Mr Speaker. This is a conspiracy to sabotage the Government. Mr Speaker and the NDC deliberately misconstrued the letter from the Office of the President to set an agenda to satisfy their parochial political interest. It is consistent with their avowed aim to put impediments in the way of the NPP’s governance of the country. Was it not their failed agenda to reject the Budget Statement and Economic Policy of 2022 as a grand scheme to mislead Ghanaians so they would vote them into power?
13. The NDC is bereft of ideas. They do not have any credible alternative solutions to the problems of international dimensions facing Ghana’s economy. The poverty of the NDC’s political posture is clear and obvious, and Ghanaians will not return them to power come December 2024, Dated 20th March, 2024.
The post Many MPs haven’t even seen the final draft of ant-lgbtqi bill – Miracles Aboagye first appeared on 3News.
Read Full Story
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Instagram
Google+
YouTube
LinkedIn
RSS