<<Print>>

The Majority leader in Parliament, Hon. Alexander Afenyo-Markin, has reminded the Speaker of Parliament, Rt. Hon. Alban Bagbin, of his right to express an opinion on the actions of President Nana Akufo-Addo in relation to the anti-gay bill, but added that while expressing his opinion, he should be mindful of his utterances which seems to be denigrating the President.

The Majority caucus of Ghana’s parliament criticized the Speaker for the way and manner he described the President in his reaction to the letter that was written to Parliament by the Secretary to the President, Nana Asante Bediatuo on this particular bill. 

During a parliamentary session on Wednesday, March 20, Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin had told President Akufo-Addo that his refusal to accept the transmission of the anti-gay bill to his office is a departure from established democratic practices when not checked will be a bad precedence for the future.

The Speaker also said the President’s conduct is undermining the spirit of cooperative governance and mutual respect for the arms of government.

Speaker Alban Bagbin said, "the behaviour exhibited by the Presidency in refusing to accept the transmission of this bill not only deviates from established democratic practices but also undermines the spirit of cooperative governance and mutual respect for the arms of government.

“This is a principle that forms the cornerstone of our political system. Such actions, if left unchecked, risk setting dangerous precedents that threaten the integrity and functionality of our democratic institutions,” he 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.

He added, “In alignment with our constitutional mandates and the principles of good governance, it is essential for the President to adhere to the lawful course of action by accepting the transmission of the bill. Upon receipt, the President has the constitutionally provided options to assent to the bill, refuse it, or seek further consultation, as deemed necessary. As we move forward, it is the collective responsibility of all branches of government, and indeed all citizens, to uphold the constitution and ensure that our democratic practices are not only preserved but strengthened."

“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 assents 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!"

He further said, “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.

Addressing the media after the Speaker’s comments on Wednesday, the Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin said, “Mr. Speaker went beyond expressing disagreement and rather pronounced judgment on what in his view was wrong. Mr. Speaker did not only stop there, he also used very unsavory words to describe Mr. President. We believe that in a democracy, we have our right to disagree on views expressed but we do not have the right to say things to denigrate another. This we think is very unacceptable.

“Mr. Speaker said the President has undermined democracy and that he should have resorted to the Constitution in making certain communications to the House. We in the Majority beg to disagree with the position taken by Mr. Speaker. If you carefully read the letter that was sent to Parliament, Mr. President limited himself to the process before the court and the fact that Parliament itself has filed an affidavit in opposition and is in court. In fact, Parliament is a party to the suit, so for us, we do not see how this would have to affect the proceedings of Parliament. In any event, Mr. Speaker has always deferred to the leadership of the House to guide him in the conduct of business.

“This morning, the leadership of the House sat together to discuss the various items to be taken, we have finished some, but there were some that we were supposed to take and we were told that Mr. Speaker would have to take the chair.  It is very disappointing that after Mr. Speaker had made known his own views about the letter sent from the presidency to the clerk he adjourned the house without giving room for the leadership of the house to even comment. This we find very strange, this is a democracy and we believe, as Mr. speaker himself said, that this ‘impasse calls for reflection’. I will play that out to Mr. Speaker that we all need to reflect on the way forward as a nation.”

The conversation on whether or not the president will assent to the Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family value Bill started after parliament had passed the bill on February 18. This generated controversies around the bill with some civil society organisations and other human rights groups called on the President not to assent to the bill. There were other groups such as the office of the Chief Imam as well as the Christian Council and the catholic Bishops’ Conference who were also calling on the President to assent to the bill passed by parliament.

In addressing some foreign diplomats, the President mentioned that the bill has been challenged in the Supreme Court, hence, he will wait for the verdict of the Supreme Court.

The bill, if assented to, prescribes between three and five years’ imprisonment to persons found guilty of willful promotion, funding, and advocating for LGBTQ+ activities prohibited under the act.

Also, persons who publicly identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, an ally, or pansexual face between two months and three years of imprisonment.

The president later indicated his inability to the bill until after the Supreme Court had finished hearing the suit filed against the bill.

Later the Attorney -General in a letter dated March 18 addressed to Parliament and signed by the executive secretary to the President, Nana Bediatuo Asante, it was indicated that the Attorney-General wrote to the President stating, amongst other things, that “he has been duly served with both applications”.

He, therefore, advised the President “not to take any step in relation to the Bill until the matters raised by the suits are determined by the Supreme Court”.

The statement further requested that Parliament “cease and desist from transmitting the Bill to the President until the matters before the Supreme Court are resolved”.

“This Office is aware of two pending applications for an order of interlocutory injunction, both filed on 7th March 2024, in the Supreme Court in Dr. Amanda Odoi v. The Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney-General (J1/13/2023) and Richard Sky v. The Parliament of Ghana and The Attorney-General (11/9/2024), respectively, to restrain you and Parliament from transmitting the Bill to the President and, also, to restrain the President from signifying his assent to the Bill, pending the final determination of the matter,” the statement added.