I have been asking over and over again: which of the MPs in our parliament is guaranteed a seat in a future parliament for the "FUTURE" argument to hold? The Attorney General actually made an argument against the future proposition, albeit unwittingly. He argued before the supreme court today that parliament, as used in the constitution, refers to only one term, that is the four-year term for which MPs are voted to parliament. Perfect. But then he goes on to make the rather weird and disingenuous argument that a decision made by an MP (in this case going independent) towards a future parliament should therefore not affect the current parliament. But you see, his premise rather supports the argument that article 97 affects the current parliament. Like I stated above, no MP is guaranteed a seat in a future parliament until they win an election for that parliament. So, saying the article refers to a future parliament is to assume that the MPs are quaranteed a seat in that future parliament. If someone leaves his party and decides to go independent, how do you tell me he would lose his seat in a future parliament when he's not entering that future parliament on the ticket of his former party? What is even the guarantee that he'd win the election to go into that parliament before article 97 takes effect? His 'punishment' for leaving the party that brought him to parliament is to be served in the parliament he's a member of, not a future parliament he's not guaranteed. As for the argument about the right of representation of their constituents, it's neither here nor there; the constitution provides a remedy for that -- a by-election, except when it's a couple of months to general elections. Now, if we have a problem with the constitution saying a by-election should not be held for a vacant seat if we're so close to general elections, then let's discuss whether that provision should be maintained or scrapped, at a different forum. Forcing a "future" interpretation of article 97 on the basis of the right of representation of the constituents of the beleaguered MPs is dishonest and disingenuous. The constitution which gave them the right of representation is the same constitution that 'curtailed' that right, on the basis that a general election is so close, which general election would restore that right to them. There are circumstances under which some rights can be curtailed, you know. Also, look at this: Assuming an NPP seat had become vacant through the death of an MP, and not the circumstances we're dealing with. And assuming that the death had occurred in same period, where the constitution says a by-election should not be held since a general election is close. Are we saying we would have made a fuss about the right of representation of the dead MP's constituents? The constitution says: "A member of parliament loses his or her seat if he leaves the party of which he was a member at the time of his election into parliament, or if he seeks to remain in parliament as an independent member". Now, those making the future argument, are you telling me that when the person who left his party to stand as an independent candidate wins and goes to the next Parliament, that's when he'd lose his seat for defecting? And you have so-called legal luminaries advancing this incredibly absurd argument? Are we thinking at all? Goodness me 🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️
See this Man,,, talking like he knows more than all Ghanaian
He's so full of himself 😮
Arrogance Arrogance Arrogance. Afenyo, your arrogance will not resolve this
I have been asking over and over again: which of the MPs in our parliament is guaranteed a seat in a future parliament for the "FUTURE" argument to hold?
The Attorney General actually made an argument against the future proposition, albeit unwittingly. He argued before the supreme court today that parliament, as used in the constitution, refers to only one term, that is the four-year term for which MPs are voted to parliament. Perfect.
But then he goes on to make the rather weird and disingenuous argument that a decision made by an MP (in this case going independent) towards a future parliament should therefore not affect the current parliament.
But you see, his premise rather supports the argument that article 97 affects the current parliament.
Like I stated above, no MP is guaranteed a seat in a future parliament until they win an election for that parliament. So, saying the article refers to a future parliament is to assume that the MPs are quaranteed a seat in that future parliament. If someone leaves his party and decides to go independent, how do you tell me he would lose his seat in a future parliament when he's not entering that future parliament on the ticket of his former party? What is even the guarantee that he'd win the election to go into that parliament before article 97 takes effect?
His 'punishment' for leaving the party that brought him to parliament is to be served in the parliament he's a member of, not a future parliament he's not guaranteed.
As for the argument about the right of representation of their constituents, it's neither here nor there; the constitution provides a remedy for that -- a by-election, except when it's a couple of months to general elections.
Now, if we have a problem with the constitution saying a by-election should not be held for a vacant seat if we're so close to general elections, then let's discuss whether that provision should be maintained or scrapped, at a different forum. Forcing a "future" interpretation of article 97 on the basis of the right of representation of the constituents of the beleaguered MPs is dishonest and disingenuous.
The constitution which gave them the right of representation is the same constitution that 'curtailed' that right, on the basis that a general election is so close, which general election would restore that right to them. There are circumstances under which some rights can be curtailed, you know.
Also, look at this: Assuming an NPP seat had become vacant through the death of an MP, and not the circumstances we're dealing with. And assuming that the death had occurred in same period, where the constitution says a by-election should not be held since a general election is close. Are we saying we would have made a fuss about the right of representation of the dead MP's constituents?
The constitution says: "A member of parliament loses his or her seat if he leaves the party of which he was a member at the time of his election into parliament, or if he seeks to remain in parliament as an independent member".
Now, those making the future argument, are you telling me that when the person who left his party to stand as an independent candidate wins and goes to the next Parliament, that's when he'd lose his seat for defecting? And you have so-called legal luminaries advancing this incredibly absurd argument? Are we thinking at all? Goodness me 🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️
eeiii is this how calmness looks like?😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
These are the guys u can't borrow gh50 from. That day noor they will be on your case.
Immaturity