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 used that premise 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 organised for entry into 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 on 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 🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️
The Chief Justice would need time to study parliament rules ..and send the matter back to parliament for vote n over turn speaker ruling...speaker is not parliament
This is a useless AG. He claims the speaker can not engage a private lawyer because he's the one to represent the speaker. He says PPA can not approve the payment of the private lawyer, and yet he has a problem with the lawyer not appearing to court. Did he want the private lawyer to do probono? You have a counter position to that of the speaker and claim you are the right person to represent him. Do you take instructions to represent the interest of your client or do your bidding? The seeds sown today will bear fruits for us all to eat in the future.
So are they NPP lawyers in supreme court? The first lawyer was wasting time n the AG has no time...And will now face lawyers from parliament😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
He is disrespecting himself. He could have called the leadership of the two sides when these issues started as the head of the institution but he chose to act as an ostrich. smh
Is it not this same Atorney-General who said the Speaker has no business to be party to the suit, so if the the Speaker did not file then the A.G should be praising the Speaker for doing the right thing, since this was his stand at the last hearing. Wonders shall never end😂😂😂
What ever that will come out from the court is ganna put the NPP guys in more troubles...maybe the court should ask the NPP guys to go back n fix thier constitution that is public...Afenyo Mankin must arrange parliament n speaker to declear...that is it😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
This isn't an issue. Afenyo just went to court for the interpretation of the law. What did he do wrong? He thinks the speaker interpreted it wrongly, so he wants the court interpretation. That's all.
Prof Bafuah should leave the speaker alone. He has not done a damn thing in this case. Afenyo and the Court should do whatever it wants. It’s a corrupt court destroying our democracy, not the Speaker.
That prof is an Npp man. I hope u know he"s the one in charge of president kufuor"s foundation. Hypocricy and dishonesty will killll them one after the other including evans mensah himself
He didn’t file because same attorney general is questioning the speaker why he hired an external lawyer and not use the services of the attorney general as his counsel. Same attorney general who has informed the speaker that the state won’t be paying for the services of his lawyer. The question is how does the attorney general expect the speaker to use his services when his position on this issue is at variance with that of the speaker? So it’s disingenuous of him to pretend not to know why the speaker didn’t file his application.
Its the AG who would write the judgment on behalf of the supreme court judges... We all know the outcome already especially when when thise JAKPAGATE AG is involved
But it is not those 4 MPs sueing parliament or the speaker..maybe if those 4 MPs are inportant use them to over turn the speaker ruling in parliament...numbers can do anything in parliament✍️✍️✍️✍️✍️✍️✍️
You have to be a member of a political party currently to file for that future election..what are they talking about. These nps have automatically vacated tgeir seats. EC is not allowed to approved your application if you're currently a member of a party but filing on rge ticket of another party for a future election. This would be absurd. The unanimous SC should open their 👁 to this issue.
The Speaker, Algban Bagbin is only displaying the attitude few Northners which doesn't bring about peace--the reason there's always conflict in the North.
The speaker is power drunk and not showing Leadership. He should have called both sides when the disagreement began but he chose to blame the executive or the president and supreme court. He claimed he had not ruled during the press conference. If you have not ruled and NDC is claiming to be majority why look on? Why not set things right for peace to reign. History will follow Bagbin.
What ever comes from the court is scrap...the MPs must sit befote speaker can amend the ruling....the NPP MPs can mix with NDC and negotiate in parliament😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Afenyo Mankin had the chanced to refused speaking ruling n requisted for a vote in parliament with those 4MPs to over turn the speaker ruling...😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
One of the reason you people don’t get a lot of views is because you put too many ads on your videos. Also, please edit the videos and take out the local advertisements as we are watching outside Ghana and don’t care about local ads.
The problem we have has been created bh a constitution which allows ine arm to appoint members of ther arms. We need to review our constitution and slash off the appointive powers of the executive if not we should not expect any sound and fair deal. Our constitution needs straightening.
Jesus said in Mathew 11:18-20, "For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He has a demon'. The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collector and sinners'. But wisdom is proved right by her deeds."
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 86 | คู่เอก "คมเพชร vs ชาติพยัคฆ์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/m3q_dRYDuU8/mqdefault.jpg)
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 used that premise 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 organised for entry into 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 on 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 🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️
Thank you for taking the time to explain this. Simple and clear.
Good, I wish we ask former Prez Kufuor this question.
You cannot be disrespecting the speaker and expect him to listen to you. What is wrong with you?
WHO IS ABAN BAGBIN? STOP GIVING VILLAGE RATS GRAVITAS
Do you mean the court disrespected the speaker? Do you guys really understand what the constitution says?
What do you know?@@patrickasante6991
Respect the speaker despite the fact that you are the legal officer for government. When were you called to the bar?I can't think far
The Chief Justice would need time to study parliament rules ..and send the matter back to parliament for vote n over turn speaker ruling...speaker is not parliament
Government = 3 arms
You guys are just emotional. The court is doing its work. Parliament or speaker doesn't interpret the laws. Rather, the Supreme Court
This is a useless AG. He claims the speaker can not engage a private lawyer because he's the one to represent the speaker. He says PPA can not approve the payment of the private lawyer, and yet he has a problem with the lawyer not appearing to court. Did he want the private lawyer to do probono?
You have a counter position to that of the speaker and claim you are the right person to represent him. Do you take instructions to represent the interest of your client or do your bidding?
The seeds sown today will bear fruits for us all to eat in the future.
Ghana has no supreme court. What we have is Akuffo Addo's Supreme court..
A jhs pupil can predict the outcome 100%
They are sabotaging themselvies....whatever come out from that court is not concern speaker...The MPs must sit first...speaker is not paliament😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
This what happens when cases without merit ends up at the Supreme Court
Mr. Speaker files the A.G says he is not suppose to file, now he did not file he says why didn't he file. Interesting!
Godfred damage talking abt disrespect.....tuehh
Why should he file when he knows the verdict?You also refused him the opportunity to sole source his lawyer.
They're trying to convince themselves that they're doing the right thing and we're the confused ones...
They don’t know the cards the speaker is playing 😂
So are they NPP lawyers in supreme court?
The first lawyer was wasting time n the AG has no time...And will now face lawyers from parliament😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
The AG is already against the SP😅😅... Interesting 😅😅😅😅
Afenyo Mankin is frausted🙆♀️🙆♀️🙆♀️🙆♀️🙆♀️🙆♀️
I think the disrespect to the speaker is too much. It must stop for smooth running of parliament
He is disrespecting himself. He could have called the leadership of the two sides when these issues started as the head of the institution but he chose to act as an ostrich. smh
Does Afenyo respect the speaker? What did he send to the supreme court? Something he heard from outside the parliament room.
Is it not this same Atorney-General who said the Speaker has no business to be party to the suit, so if the the Speaker did not file then the A.G should be praising the Speaker for doing the right thing, since this was his stand at the last hearing. Wonders shall never end😂😂😂
What ever that will come out from the court is ganna put the NPP guys in more troubles...maybe the court should ask the NPP guys to go back n fix thier constitution that is public...Afenyo Mankin must arrange parliament n speaker to declear...that is it😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
This isn't an issue. Afenyo just went to court for the interpretation of the law. What did he do wrong? He thinks the speaker interpreted it wrongly, so he wants the court interpretation. That's all.
Prof Bafuah should leave the speaker alone. He has not done a damn thing in this case. Afenyo and the Court should do whatever it wants.
It’s a corrupt court destroying our democracy, not the Speaker.
That prof is an Npp man. I hope u know he"s the one in charge of president kufuor"s foundation. Hypocricy and dishonesty will killll them one after the other including evans mensah himself
Afenyo was in court before the speaker even deli ered his opinion in parliament. He should have engaged him before going to court.
That's what no one is addressing. They went to court based on someone's thoughts 💭 💭 🤔😊
@@yasminharuna2260
Ansah asare is just doing the bidding of the speaker 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
The attorney General makes illogic arguments how did he get to be an attorney General?
The man isn't serious, come down from where
Seems like the justice was assisting one side . Which is NPP
He didn’t file because same attorney general is questioning the speaker why he hired an external lawyer and not use the services of the attorney general as his counsel. Same attorney general who has informed the speaker that the state won’t be paying for the services of his lawyer. The question is how does the attorney general expect the speaker to use his services when his position on this issue is at variance with that of the speaker? So it’s disingenuous of him to pretend not to know why the speaker didn’t file his application.
Thank you! It can't be more stinky than this really 🙄🙄
@ I tell you
U just nailed it❤
Its the AG who would write the judgment on behalf of the supreme court judges...
We all know the outcome already especially when when thise JAKPAGATE AG is involved
AG wey no get balance dey want determine contempt?💔🤣 e hard ooooo herrrrr
The Speaker has abandoned the court to fairy godmother and the NPP. It is apparent that they do not believe the SC can adjudicate fairly.
But it is not those 4 MPs sueing parliament or the speaker..maybe if those 4 MPs are inportant use them to over turn the speaker ruling in parliament...numbers can do anything in parliament✍️✍️✍️✍️✍️✍️✍️
You have to be a member of a political party currently to file for that future election..what are they talking about. These nps have automatically vacated tgeir seats. EC is not allowed to approved your application if you're currently a member of a party but filing on rge ticket of another party for a future election. This would be absurd. The unanimous SC should open their 👁 to this issue.
But the AG want to provoke lawyers in parliament😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
The one thing yhe SC can do is to interpret the constitution and refer the case to the high court to make a determination.
The Speaker, Algban Bagbin is only displaying the attitude few Northners which doesn't bring about peace--the reason there's always conflict in the North.
What has tribe got to do with this??? Learn how to speak by being objective
I'm very very infact more than disappointed in what is your mind about northerners
You lack common sense
Nkwaseakeka!!!
Wwwwwhhich court, is there one in Ghana, apuuu. It will be better to call it the Unanimous SC
The speaker is power drunk and not showing Leadership. He should have called both sides when the disagreement began but he chose to blame the executive or the president and supreme court. He claimed he had not ruled during the press conference. If you have not ruled and NDC is claiming to be majority why look on? Why not set things right for peace to reign. History will follow Bagbin.
What ever comes from the court is scrap...the MPs must sit befote speaker can amend the ruling....the NPP MPs can mix with NDC and negotiate in parliament😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Afenyo Mankin had the chanced to refused speaking ruling n requisted for a vote in parliament with those 4MPs to over turn the speaker ruling...😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Afenyo Markin and his group are law abiding citizens believed in the court.
We are all waiting for the outcome of the supreme court.
We know the verdict.
Waiting for something we already know 😂😂😂
One of the reason you people don’t get a lot of views is because you put too many ads on your videos. Also, please edit the videos and take out the local advertisements as we are watching outside Ghana and don’t care about local ads.
The problem we have has been created bh a constitution which allows ine arm to appoint members of ther arms.
We need to review our constitution and slash off the appointive powers of the executive if not we should not expect any sound and fair deal. Our constitution needs straightening.
Jesus said in Mathew 11:18-20, "For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He has a demon'. The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collector and sinners'. But wisdom is proved right by her deeds."
Is it the Speaker that has to come down or Afenyo-Markins, to me the one riding a high horse now is Afenyo-Markins.
Kangaroo court
Exactly
The AG is on some very bad drugs. That guy told the SC earlier that the Speaker’s side was not necessary because this is a matter of interpretation.
Who is the AG representing??? The NPP???
he is representing NPP