Indefinite suspension of Parliament by Speaker does not amount to proroguing - Public Affairs Director

The Public Affairs Director of the Parliament of Ghana, Ms Kate Addo says the indefinite suspension of the House by the Speaker does not amount to proroguing.

According to her, the Speaker of Parliament is not vested with the power to prorogue Parliament as per Article 113(1) of the Constitution and if any Speaker did that, it will be null and void.

The Speaker of Parliament, Professor Aaron Michael Oquaye on Saturday, April 4, 2020, when the House had concluded its sitting for that day, announced an indefinite suspension of the House instead of an adjournment.

The Speaker's reason was that his unprecedented action was Parliament's response to the general state of national emergency that the nation finds itself in.

The announcement by the Speaker agitated the Minority and caused a furore among the Minority, with its Leader describing it as an unacceptable, dictatorial rule. The Minority Leader gave an indication that the Minority may head to the Supreme Court over the action of the Speaker.

However, reacting to the incident in a statement on Monday, April 6, 2020, Ms Addo said notwithstanding the misunderstanding and seeming acrimonious note on which the House ended, the Leadership of the House is in communication to resolve the issues for the benefit of the country.

Below is the statement by the Public Affairs Director of Parliament

PARLIAMENT COMMITTED TO CONSENSUS BUILDING

The Rt. Hon. Speaker of Parliament, Prof. Aaron Michael Oquaye on Saturday,4th April 2020, when the House had concluded its sitting for that day, announced an indefinite suspension of the House instead of an adjournment. The Speaker's reason was that the unprecedented action was Parliament's response to the general state of national emergency that the nation is in.

The announcement by the Speaker agitated the Minority and caused a furore among the Minority, with its Leader, describing it as an unacceptable, dictatorial rule. The Minority Leader gave an indication that the Minority may head to the Supreme Court over the actions of the Speaker.

The Minority Leader expressed shock and sadness at what he described as the Speaker's attempt to prorogue Parliament of the Republic of Ghana. The Leader asserted that the Speaker's ruling was a subversion of the tenets, values, and principles of rule oflaw, and, in particular, the Standing Orders of the Parliament of Ghana Ordinarily, to end a meeting, the Speaker would adjourn the House sine die or indefinitely. Under such circumstances, a recall of the House would require a fourteen day notice by the Clerk, as authorized by the Speaker.

Such a notice, if it is at the beginning of a new parliamentary year, (referred to as a Session of the House) would draw Members' attention to the Constitutional Instrument summoning Parliament. This is provided for in Order 32 of the Standing Orders.

On this particular occasion, there were two options open to the Speaker, one was to adjourn the House sine die, as per the said Order of 32, or to suspend the House indefinitely, in which case, the House can be recalled at an earliest notice without the mandatory Constitutional and Standing Order requirements. The Speaker chose to suspend the House indefinitely.

The suspension option taken by the Speaker was to avoid the strictures of formalities in Order 42 where the Speaker would have to consult the House (through its Leaders) before recalling the House. Indeed, it was to give the Speaker the freedom to recall the House at the shortest notice, should an urgent need arise for Parliament to contribute in any form to the national emergency of the fight against the corona virus.

It is important to note, that the provisions in Order 42 are in particular reference to a day's Sitting and not for the adjournment of an entire Meeting. However, Speakers, over the years by convention and practice, have relied on this provision to adjourn Meetings. A recourse to this particular Order, therefore, does not provide the needed remedy in the present matter.

What the Speaker did, was in recognition of the fact that the whole nation is in a general state of emergency and so it is important that the House acts in a manner that will bring utmost benefit to the welfare of the nation. This point becomes even more poignant as a result of the fact that, not being in normal times, the House could be recalled at any time. It is therefore necessary, that the House holds itself in readiness for any eventuality.

Standing Order 6 becomes relevant here. It provides that "in all cases not provided for in (the Standing Orders), the Speaker shall make provisions as he deems fit. " At the moment, there is no express provisions for the indefinite suspension, nor the adjournment of the House at the end of a Meeting. It is therefore imperative that the Speaker provides the needed direction.

The indefinite suspension of the House by the Speaker does not amount to proroguing. Indeed the Speaker of Parliament is not vested with the power to prorogue Parliament as per Article 113(1) of the Constitution and if any Speaker did that, it will be null and void.

In Parliament, the maxim is that Members agree to disagree and arguments in the House could sometimes be not only vociferous but also forceful. At the end of the day, ideas must be reconciled for consensus building, failing which a determination by way of voting must be made. Fortunately this is usually not the case.

Parliament would like to assure citizens that it places a very high premium on consensus building. Indeed, most of the work of Parliament is based on the two sides of the House finding common ground on most issues. Occasions where antagonism wins the day are exceptions rather than the rule.

Notwithstanding the misunderstanding and seeming acrimonious note on which the House ended, the Leadership of the House is in communication to resolve the issues for the benefit of the country which remains paramount.

Kate Addo
Director, Public Affairs