Ask the speaker to make laws, sign them, and enforce them if he's a power to himself as people indicating. This is nothing but a parliamentary political coup d'etat by the speaker and NDC to cripple the current admi situation. I'm not surprised people are putting their party interest ahead of Ghana's interest.
I still disagree with your earlier submissions, the law is grounded in common sense. It’s designed to prevent conflicts of interest and maintain integrity within Parliament. By requiring MPs to vacate their seats if they switch parties or go independent, the law ensures they remain accountable to the voters who elected them under a specific party's banner. It’s a straightforward approach to uphold consistency, loyalty, and transparency in representation....
If Mike Quaye made a mistake, the mistake was embraced bcos it favours the dwarf but now that it doesn't favour the dwarf, we now know the right thing, so apart from the dwarf there is no other human being in Ghana
NDC caucus and the speaker should walk out from parliament if it's decisions can't be adhere to, the judiciary had already been bought and packed for this kind of nonsense responses ... the speak with confidence because they already know the outcome of it... Please Don't Forget about the " agyapadie book" and it's ability to pack this judicial system ... We must stand by this constitution to resist the oppressors rule ...
@@afimante6557NPP caucus has already said they are not going back to the parliament now. Let's see how all plays out. But l can assure the Speaker will repeat his ruling again and protect the business of this Parliament.
Interesting comments….but you see this particular issue has got to do with the interpretation of the constitution, and that rests on the shoulders of the judiciary. It is not the decision of parliament to take. And even the speaker acknowledged thad
Prof you right, Speaker should not submit to useless cj tukunu at supreme Court, why can't afenyo allow those independent mps to fight for themself,nonsense
It is the behavior of the judiciary and others is why some of us will never step foot in that village called gh. We cannot live in a country with that type of judiciary
They have no right to dictate the proceedings of parliament. It's like telling your neighbour that you have decided he shouldn't lock his door at night. Empty words. Whatever you say it is not your house and you can't tell him what to do.
@@augustinewiafe1125 what kind of question is that? you clearly dont know what you're talking about. the judiciary has no power over parliament. READ YOUR CONSTITUTION instead of arguing blindly.
@@princeappiah1883 you are being carried away by emotions. You listen to the professor attentively and think deeply, you will appreciate the points he put across. Indeed, he gave me a richer perspective to the issue which appreciate profoundly.
SUPREME COURT CAN'T ORDER PARLIAMENT TO STOP ACTING IN A CERTAIN MANNER. HOWEVER IT CAN RULE ON A MATTER CONCERNING AN INTERNATION OF LAW, AND IT IS EMBEDDED ON PARLIAMENT TO ACT ACCORDINGLY. THIS DECISION TO INJUNCT PARLIAMENT IS REALLY A SUPERFLUOUS.
Who is this person who thinks he knows the constitution than anyone. The speakers are not wrong. They are always right. If you do not understand seek, then you need to go back to school again. You cannot take laws which are different to justify you being right. There is always one common thing with liars. They talk too much.
The question we have to asked is that when the constitution said “ a person shall vacate his or her seat in parliament “ is the constitution saying the future parliament or the current parliament? I think if we are able to understand this basic question the rest will sort itself out
The question is a nonstarter. All 275 MPs vacate and end their seats prior to the future parliament. On the 6th of January after every election cycle, parliament doesn’t exist so what future parliament are we talking about? The future shall be occupied by the winners of the future election so what is the issue here? Are we saying Prof. Mike Okwei didn’t the difference between a future and current parliament when he gave the 2020 ruling?
It is, therefore, the potential for mischief by MP’s in the current parliament who have expressed desire to switch political party affiliation that is at the root of the constitutional articles. The law therefore targets the mischief of bribery and corrupt influence peddling by political parties over sitting MP’s by preventing both appearance and telegraphing the intent to becoming a member of the other party while parliament is afoot. After 1966 there was no unitary party government neither was there presumed dictatorship or tyrannical government, Prof Gyampo
Prof Gyampo don't forget we have Constitutional supremacy not Parliamentry supremacy, every law in this called Ghana is subject to review by court in case Supreme . Court .Samuel Baffour UK 🇬🇧
Good education about the history of this provision in the constitution. However, how does the Supreme Court's order gag Parliament? Was it not Parliament (the majority) that invited the Supreme Court into their affairs because they couldn't resolve it themselves? Or only the Speaker forms Parliament? So if there's a serious impasse in parliament the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can't be invoked to resolve it? Do we want to see our MPs engage in fisticuffs rather than go to court to seek redress? Lets throw out the emotions and be more pragmatic and objective. God bless our homeland Ghana.
The candidates in question have become "persona non gratas" in the various parties. They can't caucus together again, except for the Fomena guy. Going forward it won't be the same. Why is Gyampo failing to see that???😢😢
Right on the spot, well spoken professor. You're brilliant. This is the same argument I have. Why did the former speaker of parliament allow Fomina MP to join NPP, then , that was wrong and so the court shouldn't come in at all. This is a clear example of abuse of power from both the speaker and the NPP now Bagbin has erred too.
With all due respect, Prof I disagree, If an MP expresses an intention to leave their current party, they might start acting against that party's interests, such as by campaigning for different ideas or even directly opposing their former party. This creates a conflict, which is why the Constitution requires them to forfeit their seat. This rule prevents MPs from working against the interests of the party that helped them get elected, ensuring they follow through on the values they initially represented.
Let us maintain the respect and power if the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has only ruled to stay the ruling of parliament upon interpretation of the said law. The parliament should just obey to keep the power balance but halt activities bothering voting on majority or minority aspects of matters. In fact that is a halt on parliament proceedings anyway
Prof is wrong based on how he linked the antecedent of cpp era to article 97 of the 1992 constitution. Prof must know that the issue of overtly weakening the opposition party cannot only be done when mps cross carpet. A member(s) can remain with his or her party and always vote or go against the party. An mp can do that covertly but the moment it's done overtly or with evidence to show glaringly that the relationship with the mp is frosty and therefore working against his or her party by declaring his or her intention to go independentor join anotherparty,the seat must be declared vacant.
Prof ,I disagree with you ,even if an MP’s intention to switch is only for the next election term, the rule still applies. The Constitution doesn’t make exceptions based on timing. Once an MP declares an intention to change allegiance ,whether they plan to act on it now or in the future,it creates a conflict. Therefore, to maintain transparency and loyalty to their current party, the MP is required to forfeit their seat as soon as they express this intention.
@@HayfordAnyidoho when did he realise that? What does the Standing Orders say? In any case the Chief Justice has no business telling the Legislative arm of government how to do their business.
All we need to answer is what party do the 4 MPs officially belong to now? When they were filling to stand, where did they say they belong? Let's check the EC forms
Prof I still disagree with you,,Speakers who have ruled that MPs must vacate their seats in such cases are following the Constitution’s guidance. The rule is clear that any MP who expresses an intention to leave their party, even if it’s for a future term, creates a potential conflict. By requiring them to vacate their seat, the Speaker is upholding the law and ensuring that MPs remain loyal to the party they were elected with, keeping the integrity of parliamentary representation intact. So, these rulings align with both the letter and the spirit of the law.
MR PROF GYAMPO SOME OF US HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF LAW BUT COMMON SENSE SPEAKS SO STOP MIXING THE ISSUES BECAUSE WHATEVER THE PAST AND THE CURRENT SPEAKERS HAVE DONE WAS’NT AN ERROR OR WRONG IN SPIRIT
The political parties are the cause of what is happening in Parliament today because b0th failed to resolve conflicts among themselves in their parties. They woefully failed in using all the available mechanisms to resolve the issues between their parties and the parliamentary candidates in question. May it be a lesson in their political journey.
PROF I DO RESPECT YOU A LOT BUT IN THIS ONE IT’S VERY SUPERFICIAL ARGUMENT TO LIMIT YPUR POSITION TO BASIC GOVERNMENT ISSUE. THESE ARE MATTERS OF LEGAL CONSIDERATION. THE LAW EXISTS AND THERE’S PRECEDENT TO SUCH CONDUCT AND RULING. TO GO REGISTER TO CONTEST FOR ANOTHER PARTY FROM INDEPENDENCE STATUS OR TO VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION TO DO WHAT THEY DID TO CONTEST AS INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES WITH THEIR NEW POSITIONS ACCEPTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION WILL LEAVE NO ONE IN DOUBT THAT THEY HAVE LEFT THEIR FORMER POSITIONS. IT’S MY CONSIDERATION THAT THIS IS NOT JUST A SIMPLE SPECIFICALLY A GOVERNMENT QUESTION. IT’S A LEGAL QUESTION.
The case at hand is more consequential than the LGBT bill. The present issue directly affect the function of government whilst the latter isn’t. The mp at the forefront of the LGBT is caught on camera as saying that the LGBT is not at all important
You're trying to cancel out what's going on. In the case of Fomena issue NDC could had gone to court but they chose not to. In the case of the four MPs, NPP has gone to court for interpretation. With all due respect you're refusing to accept this is a failed Coup d'etat by NDC and the speaker.
The same constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to quench rulings of the parliament and even the decision of the executive. I become worried when intellectuals talk this ways
Gyampo and such as him are a danger to our democracy and country as a whole He's not addressing the issue at stake but just waffling. The Supreme Court is not preventing parliament from doing it's job. Media house must do well to enlist only professionals to educate all of us- Constitutional Lawyers
I dont know how people think on this page. Each branch of government has its own powers and can exercise same. However if in its exercise it acts in breach of the Constitution, it has to be whipped back in line. The speaker is not God or above the Constitution. This has been debated over and over. Where the action of parliament is in breach of the highest law, he can be challenged .
The Speaker has no jurisdiction to determine whether a vacancy has been created or not. Article 99(1)(a) reserves that jurisdiction for the High Court only. Anyone who purports to assume or arrogate that jurisdiction to himself by interpreting Article 97 as a stand-alone provision would be usurping the powers of the High Court
Prof Gyampo is spot on with the historical context but wrong on intent. An MP who plans to run as a member of the other party in the immediate contest can and will show loyalty to the party they intent to join by voting with them even while sitting as a member of another party.
Prof Gyampo at one point makes it clear that both Mike Oquay and Babin were wrong in their rulings , at the same time he condemns what the SC seeks to reverse Babin's ruling. I think Prof Gyampo must make his stands clearer.
Professor Gyampo is a disgrace. If Joy fm was serious and not doing propaganda for the NDC, he should have absent himself from all communications, because of his sex scandal. Ghana should sit up.
With this Submission Clearly for the Understanding of all, it's Surprising to say that he is a DISGRACE. Bring your Own Submission for all to listen 👂 to know the BEST Way of doing it. Ghana 🇬🇭 is FOR ALL Ghanaians NOT for some People.
If what Prof is saying is the only part, why didn't they write it as such. "If a member of parliament seek to cross carpet during current parliament, the seat becomes vacant. "
@@ahmedtijani1130 My ears and your ears are not the same. I always want to hear from wise people from remote villages than to hear from illiterate schorlars who defends the same argument they talk against. If you have ear like my own, you would have understood.
They don't have the power to do foko. Don't let the respect people try to have for them cloud your judgement of their power limit. As for judgement deɛ they can pronounce, but enforcement is the real deal. With the exception of jail term, which is carried out by the prisons service, no judge can enforce any judgement after their ruling in court. There's a difference between respect and real power or authority. Know this and know piece 😅
This man doesn't know what he is talking about.....the MPs did not just declare their intention to contest but are actually contesting!!!... He clearly doesn't understand English😂
Pro.Gyampo u have said it all. We the people of Ghana will not sit down and let ,this few fools destroy our had earned freedom.
Way ward logic. It has to be noted that from henceforth, the affected candidates cannot caucus with their respective parties again. Analyze that😅😅
What is ur freedom
Ask the speaker to make laws, sign them, and enforce them if he's a power to himself as people indicating.
This is nothing but a parliamentary political coup d'etat by the speaker and NDC to cripple the current admi situation. I'm not surprised people are putting their party interest ahead of Ghana's interest.
Prof. Prof.
Keep the good work for mother Ghana
Such a well digested argument and submission. Indeed a prof.
I still disagree with your earlier submissions, the law is grounded in common sense. It’s designed to prevent conflicts of interest and maintain integrity within Parliament. By requiring MPs to vacate their seats if they switch parties or go independent, the law ensures they remain accountable to the voters who elected them under a specific party's banner. It’s a straightforward approach to uphold consistency, loyalty, and transparency in representation....
If Mike Quaye made a mistake, the mistake was embraced bcos it favours the dwarf but now that it doesn't favour the dwarf, we now know the right thing, so apart from the dwarf there is no other human being in Ghana
How would you describe your father?
@EliteFootball441 My father is a selfless person who thinks good of others and considers the future before taking a decision
NANA ADDO IS A CROOK, THESE GUYS THINK THAT THEY ARE MORE GHANAIANS MORE THAN OTHERS.
@@andyzutah5684THEY ACTUALLY THINK GHANA IS THEIR INHERITANCE
NDC caucus and the speaker should walk out from parliament if it's decisions can't be adhere to, the judiciary had already been bought and packed for this kind of nonsense responses ... the speak with confidence because they already know the outcome of it... Please Don't Forget about the " agyapadie book" and it's ability to pack this judicial system ...
We must stand by this constitution to resist the oppressors rule ...
No, they must not walk out. Rather, they should remain resolute and stay in there. If the NPP caucus can’t stand it, they should rather go out.
@@afimante6557NPP caucus has already said they are not going back to the parliament now. Let's see how all plays out. But l can assure the Speaker will repeat his ruling again and protect the business of this Parliament.
Interesting comments….but you see this particular issue has got to do with the interpretation of the constitution, and that rests on the shoulders of the judiciary. It is not the decision of parliament to take. And even the speaker acknowledged thad
beautiful submission
Prof you right, Speaker should not submit to useless cj tukunu at supreme Court, why can't afenyo allow those independent mps to fight for themself,nonsense
Gyimie saaaa
Brillant delivery. Academically digested
The constitution needs a review because, some laws are not straight for every Ghanaian to understand.
It is the behavior of the judiciary and others is why some of us will never step foot in that village called gh. We cannot live in a country with that type of judiciary
You will one day be here 😅
No matter how you describe it
Tuesday I don't expect Hon. Speaker to back down. We are tired of "showing maturity"
You're a Teacher indeed
You are worth your salt on this issue.
I have always had the impression that the supreme court has no power over the speaker or parliament.Is this true?
They have no right to dictate the proceedings of parliament. It's like telling your neighbour that you have decided he shouldn't lock his door at night. Empty words. Whatever you say it is not your house and you can't tell him what to do.
@amisco333 Is parliamentarians above the laws of Ghana?
@@augustinewiafe1125 what kind of question is that? you clearly dont know what you're talking about. the judiciary has no power over parliament. READ YOUR CONSTITUTION instead of arguing blindly.
Nkwasia keka kwa, if they don't have that power I think you have it use it AHOYAA KWA
ABSOLUTELY TRUE
Very matured lecture
That man talking is somehow making a whole lot of senses there!... 🍁
Best submission so far on this issue.. I find it confusing listening to some lawyers interpreting the law..hmmmm
Solid argument by the professor
What solid argument'even judiciary can gag executive..if not Ghana shameless prof gyampo cannot sit on radio and talk
The S. Court has Power to stop anyone in Ghana to do right thing. Which Kind of Prof. Is this
@@andrewsmensahyeboah5943 the judiciary doesn’t have the power to decide the work of parliament.
@@princeappiah1883 you are being carried away by emotions. You listen to the professor attentively and think deeply, you will appreciate the points he put across. Indeed, he gave me a richer perspective to the issue which appreciate profoundly.
@@MegaGoodmann people won’t learn except to insult learned people. So don’t mind him.
SUPREME COURT CAN'T ORDER PARLIAMENT TO STOP ACTING IN A CERTAIN MANNER. HOWEVER IT CAN RULE ON A MATTER CONCERNING AN INTERNATION OF LAW, AND IT IS EMBEDDED ON PARLIAMENT TO ACT ACCORDINGLY.
THIS DECISION TO INJUNCT PARLIAMENT IS REALLY A SUPERFLUOUS.
Who is this person who thinks he knows the constitution than anyone. The speakers are not wrong. They are always right. If you do not understand seek, then you need to go back to school again. You cannot take laws which are different to justify you being right. There is always one common thing with liars. They talk too much.
i think professor Gyampo will have to take a second look at Bagbin's submission with regards to his ruling before saying he is wrong
The question we have to asked is that when the constitution said “ a person shall vacate his or her seat in parliament “ is the constitution saying the future parliament or the current parliament? I think if we are able to understand this basic question the rest will sort itself out
The question is a nonstarter. All 275 MPs vacate and end their seats prior to the future parliament. On the 6th of January after every election cycle, parliament doesn’t exist so what future parliament are we talking about? The future shall be occupied by the winners of the future election so what is the issue here? Are we saying Prof. Mike Okwei didn’t the difference between a future and current parliament when he gave the 2020 ruling?
that is not gagging, it is not doing what you are not supposed to do.
how can the speaker, and for that matter parliament, interpret the law?
Prof great submission
Osei Kyei Mensah would have been the best man for Bawumia as a running mate. The man is full of experience
It is, therefore, the potential for mischief by MP’s in the current parliament who have expressed desire to switch political party affiliation that is at the root of the constitutional articles. The law therefore targets the mischief of bribery and corrupt influence peddling by political parties over sitting MP’s by preventing both appearance and telegraphing the intent to becoming a member of the other party while parliament is afoot. After 1966 there was no unitary party government neither was there presumed dictatorship or tyrannical government, Prof Gyampo
Prof Gyampo don't forget we have Constitutional supremacy not Parliamentry supremacy, every law in this called Ghana is subject to review by court in case Supreme . Court .Samuel Baffour UK 🇬🇧
Was this man in Ghana when Mike Quaye declare the Fonena seat empty? What kind of nonsense is this?
Opro!
Good education about the history of this provision in the constitution. However, how does the Supreme Court's order gag Parliament? Was it not Parliament (the majority) that invited the Supreme Court into their affairs because they couldn't resolve it themselves? Or only the Speaker forms Parliament? So if there's a serious impasse in parliament the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can't be invoked to resolve it? Do we want to see our MPs engage in fisticuffs rather than go to court to seek redress? Lets throw out the emotions and be more pragmatic and objective. God bless our homeland Ghana.
The candidates in question have become "persona non gratas" in the various parties. They can't caucus together again, except for the Fomena guy. Going forward it won't be the same. Why is Gyampo failing to see that???😢😢
Right on the spot, well spoken professor. You're brilliant. This is the same argument I have. Why did the former speaker of parliament allow Fomina MP to join NPP, then , that was wrong and so the court shouldn't come in at all. This is a clear example of abuse of power from both the speaker and the NPP now Bagbin has erred too.
Do we even have a democracy? The executive has already committed a coup against Ghanaians and the judiciary is an accomplice
Spare us the history. What is the logic and sensible meaning of the law to us today, Gyampo
With all due respect, Prof I disagree, If an MP expresses an intention to leave their current party, they might start acting against that party's interests, such as by campaigning for different ideas or even directly opposing their former party. This creates a conflict, which is why the Constitution requires them to forfeit their seat. This rule prevents MPs from working against the interests of the party that helped them get elected, ensuring they follow through on the values they initially represented.
Let us maintain the respect and power if the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has only ruled to stay the ruling of parliament upon interpretation of the said law. The parliament should just obey to keep the power balance but halt activities bothering voting on majority or minority aspects of matters. In fact that is a halt on parliament proceedings anyway
So why didn't supreme court see Mike Ocquaye's ruling wrong in 2020?? Did u even pay attention at all???
Whose authority is going down? The makers of law or the intepreters?
Prof is wrong based on how he linked the antecedent of cpp era to article 97 of the 1992 constitution.
Prof must know that the issue of overtly weakening the opposition party cannot only be done when mps cross carpet. A member(s) can remain with his or her party and always vote or go against the party. An mp can do that covertly but the moment it's done overtly or with evidence to show glaringly that the relationship with the mp is frosty and therefore working against his or her party by declaring his or her intention to go independentor join anotherparty,the seat must be declared vacant.
It will be a bad precedent if He doesn't.
This Ransford Gyampo man is a walking Wisdom
Not others like... Who also call themselves professors but are walking Imbeciles
Prof ,I disagree with you ,even if an MP’s intention to switch is only for the next election term, the rule still applies. The Constitution doesn’t make exceptions based on timing. Once an MP declares an intention to change allegiance ,whether they plan to act on it now or in the future,it creates a conflict. Therefore, to maintain transparency and loyalty to their current party, the MP is required to forfeit their seat as soon as they express this intention.
Not forget that we have one Ghana
WHY DON'T YOU ASK MIKE OQUOE THIS QUESTION WHEN HE REMOVED AN MP FROM THE PARLIAMENT AFTER CROSSING CARPET?
So the wrong doing should continue? He just said it now. Or what is your point?
@@HayfordAnyidoho when did he realise that? What does the Standing Orders say? In any case the Chief Justice has no business telling the Legislative arm of government how to do their business.
He said it then but that issue didn't have the political implications that the current issues have hence the brouhaha
Interesting time's ahead. Bagbin will react back and shut the Supreme down .
All we need to answer is what party do the 4 MPs officially belong to now? When they were filling to stand, where did they say they belong? Let's check the EC forms
Prof I still disagree with you,,Speakers who have ruled that MPs must vacate their seats in such cases are following the Constitution’s guidance. The rule is clear that any MP who expresses an intention to leave their party, even if it’s for a future term, creates a potential conflict. By requiring them to vacate their seat, the Speaker is upholding the law and ensuring that MPs remain loyal to the party they were elected with, keeping the integrity of parliamentary representation intact. So, these rulings align with both the letter and the spirit of the law.
There should be no Parliament
MR PROF GYAMPO SOME OF US HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF LAW BUT COMMON SENSE SPEAKS SO STOP MIXING THE ISSUES BECAUSE WHATEVER THE PAST AND THE CURRENT SPEAKERS HAVE DONE WAS’NT AN ERROR OR WRONG IN SPIRIT
Prof Gyampoh spoke so well and accurately
Thumbs up Sir
I disagree with pro because the constitution say less 3months there will no bye election what does that mean?
The political parties are the cause of what is happening in Parliament today because b0th failed to resolve conflicts among themselves in their parties. They woefully failed in using all the available mechanisms to resolve the issues between their parties and the parliamentary candidates in question. May it be a lesson in their political journey.
PROF I DO RESPECT YOU A LOT BUT IN THIS ONE IT’S VERY SUPERFICIAL ARGUMENT TO LIMIT YPUR POSITION TO BASIC GOVERNMENT ISSUE. THESE ARE MATTERS OF LEGAL CONSIDERATION. THE LAW EXISTS AND THERE’S PRECEDENT TO SUCH CONDUCT AND RULING. TO GO REGISTER TO CONTEST FOR ANOTHER PARTY FROM INDEPENDENCE STATUS OR TO VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION TO DO WHAT THEY DID TO CONTEST AS INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES WITH THEIR NEW POSITIONS ACCEPTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION WILL LEAVE NO ONE IN DOUBT THAT THEY HAVE LEFT THEIR FORMER POSITIONS. IT’S MY CONSIDERATION THAT THIS IS NOT JUST A SIMPLE SPECIFICALLY A GOVERNMENT QUESTION. IT’S A LEGAL QUESTION.
2:21Pm
Well I don't know more but I think proof's submission is understandable
The case at hand is more consequential than the LGBT bill. The present issue directly affect the function of government whilst the latter isn’t. The mp at the forefront of the LGBT is caught on camera as saying that the LGBT is not at all important
When Jesus Christ said it's finished on the cross he was referring to your brain
@@duahisaac272😂😂😂😂😂😂
You're trying to cancel out what's going on. In the case of Fomena issue NDC could had gone to court but they chose not to. In the case of the four MPs, NPP has gone to court for interpretation.
With all due respect you're refusing to accept this is a failed Coup d'etat by NDC and the speaker.
I hope he knows about conflict of interest
The same constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to quench rulings of the parliament and even the decision of the executive. I become worried when intellectuals talk this ways
Seriously. I get worried when intellectuals talk this way. What he's saying is double standard. It doesn't make sense . It's worrying !!!!!!!!
Gyampo and such as him are a danger to our democracy and country as a whole
He's not addressing the issue at stake but just waffling.
The Supreme Court is not preventing parliament from doing it's job.
Media house must do well to enlist only professionals to educate all of us-
Constitutional Lawyers
Everything happening is the will of the problematic president ruling Ghana.
Pro. Gyampo, you are not a good professor. The speaker was right
I dont know how people think on this page. Each branch of government has its own powers and can exercise same. However if in its exercise it acts in breach of the Constitution, it has to be whipped back in line. The speaker is not God or above the Constitution. This has been debated over and over. Where the action of parliament is in breach of the highest law, he can be challenged .
The Speaker has no jurisdiction to determine whether a vacancy has been created or not. Article 99(1)(a) reserves that jurisdiction for the High Court only. Anyone who purports to assume or arrogate that jurisdiction to himself by interpreting Article 97 as a stand-alone provision would be usurping the powers of the High Court
Hope you were in Ghana in November 2020 right? 😊
So why is supreme court running like a rat to interfere? She is in somebody s pocket abi.
😂😂NPP is criminal organisation. The people can now confidently say, SC is an appendage of NPP. 😂😂😂
nppfuor mostly tell ndc go to court or they go to court themselves because kwasea kwasea akuffo addo has packed the judiciary to nppfuors advantage.
See another pig ooooo gyimie saaaa Ghana kwasiato learn sense small wai nantwiemuuuu
wo papa kwasia panyin kuraa you stupid fool respeck him. gyimi fuo mu gyimiigyimii
These noise makers.
I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH YOU PROF IN SOME OF YOUR SUBMISSIONS
So with what this man is saying if there's confusion in the business of parliament in terms of the interpretation of the law who do we go to
2
Tell M3diwo Prof Gyampo that he's not the custodisn of Wisdom and Knowledge.
We are talking law you are talking literature
STOP THESE NONSENSE COMPARISONS
Prof Gyampo is spot on with the historical context but wrong on intent. An MP who plans to run as a member of the other party in the immediate contest can and will show loyalty to the party they intent to join by voting with them even while sitting as a member of another party.
🥤🥤🥤🥤🥤🥤🥤🥤🥤🥤🥤
Parliament should create a law to ban supreme Court from interfering with it
And that law will be struck out as unconstitutional. Do you even understand what you are saying
🧃🧃🧃🧃🧃🧃🧃🧃
You people are ruining Ghana for the rest of us.
Prof Gyampo at one point makes it clear that both Mike Oquay and Babin were wrong in their rulings , at the same time he condemns what the SC seeks to reverse Babin's ruling. I think Prof Gyampo must make his stands clearer.
They were wrong because they have deprived the constituents and are right because they took decisions as an independent organ
Professor Gyampo is a disgrace. If Joy fm was serious and not doing propaganda for the NDC, he should have absent himself from all communications, because of his sex scandal. Ghana should sit up.
With this Submission Clearly for the Understanding of all, it's Surprising to say that he is a DISGRACE. Bring your Own Submission for all to listen 👂 to know the BEST Way of doing it. Ghana 🇬🇭 is FOR ALL Ghanaians NOT for some People.
If what Prof is saying is the only part, why didn't they write it as such.
"If a member of parliament seek to cross carpet during current parliament, the seat becomes vacant. "
You are talking nonsense and rubbish
Gyampo doesn't know anything. He's just a smartass.
Prof. Gyampo the sex for marks man
Gyampo you talk too much. Mr know all.
Learn and stop the unnecessary criticism
@@princearthur2803 do you understand unnecessary critism?🤣
He talks too much because you are not hearing what you want to hear
@@ahmedtijani1130 My ears and your ears are not the same. I always want to hear from wise people from remote villages than to hear from illiterate schorlars who defends the same argument they talk against. If you have ear like my own, you would have understood.
The president is a fool!
The judiciary has constitutional authority to stop any illegal exercise of power by parliament or the executive. Period.
They don't have the power to do foko. Don't let the respect people try to have for them cloud your judgement of their power limit. As for judgement deɛ they can pronounce, but enforcement is the real deal. With the exception of jail term, which is carried out by the prisons service, no judge can enforce any judgement after their ruling in court. There's a difference between respect and real power or authority. Know this and know piece 😅
Ignorant
@@kingblaq100
Of course they do! That authority is granted by the Constitution, not YOU.
If it was illegal Prof. Mike quaye was wrong too
@@ekoict250
Did you or anyone challenge Prof. Quayle’s ruling in the Supreme Court?
Sex for grade professor Gyampo has no credibility anymore. He has no shame at all.
You can hardly comprehend sound debate so I won’t blame you. Childish talk from you.
Are u part of the low iQ group?
Illiterate talk, only a f00l with no argument will resort to your petty insults.
I hope you know the platform on which you are. You can't say such evil things about people anyhow without knowing in advance the consequences.
Is the sex for grade story true???
This man doesn't know what he is talking about.....the MPs did not just declare their intention to contest but are actually contesting!!!...
He clearly doesn't understand English😂
Funny, can u teach de professor English
Hmmmm
Such a well digested argument and submission. Indeed a prof.