ghananlpcommunity/ghana-gov-speeches-sentences huggingface dataset:
A case in point was the refusal of the House to consider and to approve the nomination of a Court of appeal Judge to be appointed as Justice of the Supreme Court.
As long as it is done in good faith and with transparent justification, such cases cannot be called rubber-stamping or obstructionist.
As Speaker, I will not yield to pressure from any quarter to allow this august House to be turned into a rubber stamp or an obstructer.
IMPARTIALITY OF THE SPEAKER Let me also say a few words about the office of Speaker as envisioned under our Constitution.
While past practice might lead some to think otherwise, the truth of the matter is that, the Speakership is not a partisan-political office.
Regardless of which party nominated or voted to elect him or her, and regardless of his or her previous political background, the Speaker of the Parliament of Ghana occupies a nonpartisan, impartial office.
There is no NPP Speaker or NDC Speaker; there is only a Speaker of the Parliament of Ghana.
Unlike my counterpart in the American House of Representatives, the Ghanaian Speaker is not a Member of the House.
The Ghanaian Speaker presides over but does not participate in proceedings of the House; and he or she has no vote, not even a casting vote, in matters before the House.
In fact, the Speakership in Ghana is designed to be even more impartial and more apolitical than the Speaker of the House of Commons in Westminster.
It is indeed to ensure that the Speaker remains impartial in presiding over the affairs of this House and Parliament that his election is done by secret ballot.
The independence and impartiality of the Speaker is particularly evident from one line in the Speaker’s Oath.
That line is not found in the Presidential Oath, the Oath of Vice-President, the Oath for Ministers of State and Cabinet, or the Oath of a Member of Parliament.
That line reads: “And I will do right to all manner of persons in accordance with the Constitution and the laws and conventions of Parliament without fear or favor, affection or ill will .”
That last phrase, “without fear or favor, affection or ill will”, defines the office of Speaker as an impartial, nonpartisan office.
I assure you I don’t take this Oath lightly at all.
The only other Oaths in the Second Schedule to the Constitution of the Fourth Republic in which you find this same language are the Judicial Oath and the Oath of the Auditor-General.
This is because, like the Speaker, these offices too are meant to be nonpartisan, impartial, and independent.
Hon Members, much has been made of the fact that I come to this position from a long career as a politician and member of the National Democratic Congress, one of the two parties represented in this House.
As far as I am concerned, that fact is of no consequence to my new role as Speaker.
In fact, it is not a novelty in this House.
I myself have worked harmoniously with Speakers of diverse political backgrounds, including on one occasion supporting the nomination for re-election as Speaker of the 4 th Republic, a well-known figure of the New Patriotic Party.
But more importantly, as I have made clear, the office I now occupy is an impartial, independent, and apolitical office, akin, in that regard, to the position of a Justice or Chief Justice.
Just as a person with a known party affiliation like myself could be appointed to the Supreme Court, so it is with the Speakership.
What matters, above all, is that, once appointed as a Chief Justice or Justice or elected as a Speaker, that person, regardless of his political past, must conduct himself or herself in accordance with the requirements and ethics of his or her new office and, as expressed in the Oath of that office, without fear or favor, affection or ill-will.
Hon Members, I intend to live by the Oath I swore on the occasion of my election to this office, to respect, obey and abide by the will of the House.
I am fully committed to being fair and impartial.
But I am also fully committed to being firm.
Members must also in reciprocity, respect and abide by my rulings and instructions.
When in disagreement, the Standing Orders of the House, has the answer.
I will apply the authority of the House as symbolized by the Mace, to protect and defend the prerogatives, privileges and immunities of Parliament, members and staff as provided under the laws of the country.
Let me at this juncture, acknowledge the many contributions made by my predecessors, in whose shoes I walk today.
Hon Justice Daniel Francis Annan laid a solid foundation to anchor the growth and development of parliamentary law, practice and procedure in the Fourth Republican Parliament.
I acknowledge with great appreciation and respect the contributions of Rt.
Peter Ala Adjetey, Rt Hon Ebenezer Sekyi-Hughes, Rt.
Justice Joyce Adeline Bamford-Addo, Rt.
Edward Kobla Doe Adjaho and Rt Hon.
Aaron Mike Oquaye.
I have worked with all these Speakers as a leader and a member of the Parliamentary Service Board, and I can attest to the tireless efforts each and every one of them made to consolidate, strengthen the Institution of Parliament and to build the capacity of members and staff of Parliament.
I pledge to build on these achievements and to widen and deepen the frontiers of parliamentary governance even further.
Hon Members, some critical laws could not be passed by the previous Parliaments and these have gone into abeyance with the dissolution of the 7th Parliament.
Draft Legislations such as the Affirmative Action Bill, Spousal Rights Bill, Standing Orders of the House which has been pending before the House since 2002, the Budget Bill, International Business and Agreements Bill, etc.
calls fo0r urgent action.
I call on the responsible sponsoring government agencies or Institutions to resubmit these Bills to the House early for consideration.
In particular, I call on Parliament to expedt5ioiusly deal with the review of the Standing Orders of the House.
I vision a bipartisan, inclusive, participatory, responsive, efficient and effective Parliament.
The eight Parliament will have to work to earn the respect of the people of Ghana and to restore the image and dignity of the Institution.
There is nothing more noble and satisfying than to render service to the people.
I would like to end by echoing the words of President Akufo-Addo, when he delivered his Message on the State of the Nation on the dissolution of the 7 th Parliament (and I quote): “The good people of Ghana have spoken and given Parliament almost equal strength on both sides of the House; we have no choice but to work with the consequences of the desires of the People.
The House would have to be more accommodating of each other’s views and, probably, devise new ways of conducting its affairs.”
I fully subscribe to that view.
No more, no less.
Cooperation, dialogue, accommodation, and consensus building must guide this Parliament in the conduct of its business.
We must work together for the betterment of Ghana and Ghanaians.
That I believe is the demand of Ghanaians and the loud and clear message of the 2020 general elections.
That is the message in the votes of 136 in favor of Rt Hon.
Aaron Mike Oquaye, as to 138 for Hon Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, with one spoilt ballot, which propelled me to this high office of Speaker of the Parliament of Ghana.
The battle is always the Lords.
Glory be to the Most High God.
I thank you for the patience and attention.
On behalf of the Parliament of Ghana, I congratulate our Moslem fraternity on the occasion of Eid-Ul-Fitr which is Thursday, May 13 2021.
I believe the period of fasting has helped strengthen and renew the faith of our brothers and sisters in Islam.
I am persuaded that this renewal of faith will guide all of us to be tolerant of one another and to focus our energies on today’s pressing issues that will help us to fix this beloved country of ours.
It is with that in mind that I wish to commend the youth, both Moslems and Christians, who are demanding a lot more pragmatic measures from the leadership of our country to fix the numerous challenges that confront us at the moment.
It is obvious that the majority of the concerns expressed by the Fix Ghana Movement have existed since our independence.
However, it is also true that these challenges have become more pronounced in today’s Ghana.
Indeed, various governments in our history have attempted to fix these issues without success.
The solutions to these problems would require all of us working in concert towards what we aspire to as a nation.
They require constitutional changes, review of our institutions, systems, processes and procedures.
We can only tackle these challenges with a renewed commitment to the faith that we all profess to, be it Christianity, Islam or Traditional Religion.
We can fix this country by reviewing our economic management paradigm that seems to over focus on borrowing.
We need to interrogate the relevance of our educational system and make it more responsive to the demands of today.
We must relook at the conduct of our politics and religion, and the extent to which they feed into, or detract from our national aspirations.
We require bold thinking on fighting corruption, on confronting galamsey, improving our public safety, delivering reasonable and affordable healthcare, creating jobs for our youth and restoring trust between the Ghanaian voter and the political elite.
We require bold stance from our religious leaders on the issues that are holding this country back.
Our country is failing and we must work together in a peaceful approach to avoid a recourse to violence.
A peaceful approach includes acknowledging the rights of individuals to assemble and to demonstrate without any subterfuge calculated at denying the youth of that right.
The youth seeking to protest are not misguided law-breakers.
They are patriots and citizens; citizens in the sense that the President called for in his first inaugural address.
On the occasion of Eid-Ul-Fitr, my message to them is this: We hear you, we stand with you and we will work with you to build the Ghana we all dream of - a nation that offers succor to all its citizens irrespective of their religious beliefs and political persuasions; a nation that lives up to its motto--Freedom and Justice!
Happy Eid-Ul-Fitr!
Signed: Rt.
A. S. K. Bagbin, Speaker of Parliament
A matter of concern and public interest has recently been brought to my attention by the Judicial Service which requires me to make this statement to throw more light as a sequel to the circular issued by the Chief Justice and a guide to the Members, the Clerk to Parliament and the general public.
As Hon.
Members are aware, the 1992 Constitution has provided for the Speaker, Members of Parliament and the Clerk to Parliament privileges and immunities which are absolutely necessary for the due execution of their functions and the power of the Parliament.
These privileges are special rights enjoyed by the House collectively as a whole and by members individually, without which the members could not discharge their functions, and these privileges exceed those enjoyed by other bodies or individuals.
This is to ensure that the Legislature is able to carry its constitutional duties without let or hindrance from judicial processes.
One of such privileges and immunities is contained in Article 117 of the Constitution which provides that “Civil or criminal process coming from any court or place out of Parliament shall not be served on, or executed in relation to, the Speaker or member or the Clerk to Parliament while he is on his way to, attending at or returning from, any proceedings of Parliament”.
In the seminar and induction workshop of members of this House, the First Deputy Speaker dealt with this subject matter extensively as the resource person.
But it seems to me that much still has to be done on this matter.
I say this because my attention has been drawn recently to the attempts by some Members of Parliament to decline or evade service of court processes and documents while Parliament was on recess and the Hon.
Members were not on their way to, attending at or returning from any proceedings of the Parliament.
This situation has led to some confrontation with court process servers while some Justices have had to resort to the issuance of substituted service orders to ensure the smooth adjudication of cases before them.
I also got to know that some Members were arraigned before the court and charged with various offences without any notice to the Speaker, This conduct is an aberration and should not be repeated.
We are all in agreement that, the three coordinate arms of Government while acting independently, must operate as an organic whole with due regard and respect to each other to ensure an equilibrium in the governance architecture and for the protection of the rule of Law and the constitutional order.
SCOPE AND ENFORCEMENT OF ARTICLES 117 AND 118 OF THE CONSTITUTION The operational term in Article 117 that is worth noting is that the immunity granted by the Constitution to specific functionaries of Parliament is only to be exercised when the functionary “is on his way to, attending at or returning from, any proceedings of Parliament.”
In other words, Members of Parliament may only avail themselves of this immunity when Parliament is in session.
Proceedings of the House have been defined to include sittings, meetings, and Parliament and its Committees activities.
Further, Article 118 (1) of the Constitution provides that “Neither the Speaker, nor a member of, nor the Clerk to, Parliament shall be compelled while attending Parliament to appear as a witness in any court or place out of Parliament.”
Clause (2) of Article 118 provides “The certificate of the Speaker that a member or the Clerk is attending the proceedings of Parliament is conclusive evidence of attendance at Parliament.”
These provisions have unfortunately in some instances been disregarded by some court officials.
Indeed, Speakers of previous Parliaments have sought to provide guidance on the enforcement of these provisions and have ensured that service of processes from outside Parliament on Hon.
Members have been effected with the permission of the Speaker.
While the enforcement and application of the provisions in article 118 of the 1992 Constitution have largely been without incident, the enforcement and application of article 117 has been fraught with challenges.
As Speaker of the 8th Parliament, I receive a flood of requests for the service of processes on Hon.
Members of Parliament and in some cases process servers attempted to serve Hon.
Members in the precincts of Parliament during the 1st Meeting which processes had to be returned to the Registrars.
To ensure that this situation is contained, I had cause to formally write, to draw the attention of His Lordship, the Chief Justice to the non-compliance with these provisions by officers of the Judicial Service.
In a letter dated 19th February 2021 and addressed to the Chief Justice and Head of the Judicial Service, I indicated my strongest reservations with the attempt by officers of the Judicial Service to serve court processes on some Members of Parliament, the Clerk to Parliament and the Speaker of Parliament while these Office holders were attending to the proceedings of Parliament at the precincts of Parliament when Parliament was in session.
I did not take kindly to that conduct and highlighted same to the His Lordship, the Chief Justice.
Such conduct, for me, is unlawful, unconstitutional and amounted to an interference with the work of Parliament and is not to be countenanced.
The Chief Justice by a letter dated 22nd February 2021, respectfully acknowledged these breaches of the Constitution by officers of the Judicial Service and reiterated the position I have just outlined.
He went further to assure me of his immediate action to halt the practice.
He proceeded to do just that in a circular and provided me with a copy of the circular which directed that the provisions in Articles 117 and 118 be respected by all Judges and Court Officers.
The Circular further reminded the Court officials that the Speaker, Members of Parliament and the Clerk to Parliament shall not be served with any process of any court or compelled to appear as a witness in any court unless Parliament is not in session or the Speaker so certifies that the office holder in question is not on his way to, attending at or returning from any proceedings of Parliament.
The Circular from His Lordship the Chief Justice, ensured that during the remaining days of the 1st Meeting of Parliament, Hon.
Members and the precinct of Parliament were not inundated with processes from the Courts.
On your behalf and on my part, I extended our gratitude to the Chief Justice for that singular intervention.
Members are aware, as far back as the 1969 Constitution, when these provisions were first introduced in our democracy, the 1968 Constitutional Commission Report justified the need for parliamentary immunity from arrest and the service of court processes by maintaining that such immunity ensures Members of Parliament are not distracted by arrest and detention while they are on their way to, attending at or returning from any proceeding of Parliament.
The Commission further noted that the immunity should not be made to cover serious offences such as treason, sedition and felony, or to apply to alleged offences committed in flagrante delicto.
The Commission proposed that civil or criminal processes issuing from the courts or place out of Parliament could be served on Members with the prior permission of the Speaker.
These provisions were repeated in the 1979 and our current 1992 Constitution.
Members without a doubt the immunity from service of processes is necessary to prevent the use of such processes to impede the work of Parliament.
This should, however, not be understood to mean that Hon.
Members cannot be served at all with any processes from outside Parliament.
Members, as important as the privileges and immunities provided by the Constitution are to secure Parliament’s role in our democracy, the Constitution also contemplates that the arms of Government will be committed to ensuring that our practices promote a workable government and democracy.
In this sense, the constitutional privileges and immunities must not be abused nor asserted to frustrate its very purpose of promoting our democracy.
Members, it is in this regard that I must bring to your attention, the fact that the immunity enjoyed by the Speaker, members of Parliament, and Clerk to Parliament are not absolute anytime, anywhere, and any day.
As such, when Parliament is not in session or a Member of Parliament is not on his way to, attending at or returning from the business of Parliament, such a member may be served a court process and may appear as a witness in a court proceeding.
It follows therefore that while Parliament is not in session or the Speaker has not certified that a Member or Clerk to Parliament is attending to the business of Parliament, a Member of Parliament may not evade service of court process or refuse to appear as a court summoned witness in a court proceeding.
Any such act would amount to a violation of Articles 117 and 118 of the Constitution and same would not be encouraged in this House.
Let me emphasis again that Parliamentary proceedings include Parliamentary Committee meetings and activities.
CONCLUSION The Legislature and Judiciary have a sacred duty to accord each other respect and reverence in consonance with the dignity and authority of each arm of government.
Each Arm is duty bound to uphold the privileges and immunities accorded in the 1992 Constitution as an important component of the doctrine of Separation of Powers underpinning our Constitution.
Flowing from the above, and in reference to the circular of the Chief Justice I provide the following guidance to the House, Members and Clerk to Parliament.
That when Parliament is in session there is a presumption, in the normal course of business, that a Speaker, Member of Parliament or Clerk to Parliament is on his way to, attending at or returning from, proceedings of Parliament and cannot be served a process from any court or place out of Parliament whilst in motion.
That when a Speaker, Member of Parliament or Clerk to Parliament is in the precinct of Parliament, there is a presumption that the Speaker, Member of Parliament or Clerk to Parliament is attending to a proceeding of Parliament and cannot be served a process from any court or place out of Parliament.
That when Parliament is on recess the presumption can be said to be rebuttable and Members of Parliament may be served a process from any court or place out of Parliament whether the Member is in the Constituency, in the private office outside Parliament or at his residence.
That when Parliament is on recess, and a Speaker, Member of Parliament or Clerk to Parliament is in the precinct of Parliament, there is a presumption that the Speaker, Member of Parliament or Clerk to Parliament is attending to the business of Parliament and cannot be served a process within the precinct of Parliament.
That where a Member is served a process from a court or place out of Parliament while the House is on recess, the Member shall accept the process and immediately inform the Speaker, whilst taking the necessary action arising out of the service.
The Court or place out of Parliament must also inform the Speaker of the service of the process.
This is to give opportunity for the Speaker to exercise the responsibility imposed on him/her by Article 118 (2).
Where a Member is attending to business of Parliament such as Committee meetings or activity, during the recess and the Member is served a process from a court or place out of Parliament, the member may respectfully direct the service of the process through the Speaker.
Where the official insists on serving the process on the Member, the Member may notify the Speaker of the service, and where the Speaker has ascertained that the Member is attending to the business of Parliament, the Speaker will direct that the process be returned to the Registrar of the Court in compliance with Article 117 of the Constitution.
Where a Member accepts service of a process and has entered appearance, the Member is said to have become a party to an action and will thus not be covered by the immunities provided under articles 117 and 118 of the 1992 Constitution as rightly held by the Learned Justice of the High Court in the case of The Republic vs Mahama Ayariga & Others 2019 (unreported).
Despite this ruling, a practice is developing between the Judiciary and the Legislature, out of mutual respect, where the Courts accept requests from Parliament to schedule hearings on dates and times that will not clash with a plenary sitting of Parliament; and (where) on several occasions, the Courts have accepted a letter from Mr Speaker for adjournment of matters pending in Courts, subject to the convenience of the Court, due to the fact that Hon.
Members are attending to the critical or urgent business of the House.
This practice, I believe, will continue to guide this grey area of the Constitution.
Members, I urge you all to accord the members of the Judiciary and the Judicial Service the utmost respect, decency and decorum they deserve.
It has taken a long period of history, full of lessons, and effort to achieve a cordial and harmonious relationship between the Judiciary and the Legislature.
We should treasure that cordial relationship and desist from jeopardising it with actions or inactions which are not well thought through.
I trust that this statement provides a guide to ensure that these peculiar rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by members individually, as stated in the Constitution, are respected, and due care is taken not to impede or obstruct the administration of Justice in the Republic.
Judges and Judicial Officers must be free to administer justice without let or hindrance, ill will or affection.
On 24 June 2007 Ghana ratified the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, which is the only legally binding universal anti-corruption instrument.