Pianim says Minority boycott is risky but Sir John Says its irreversible

But the General Secretary of the NPP, Mr Kwadwo Owusu-Afriyie, has hit back, saying the decision was taken in the interest of the party by its National Executive Council, its highest decision-making body, and was irreversible.

He questioned Mr Painim’s NPP credentials and wondered what authority he had to call for an emergency national congress of the party.

He said if Mr Pianim were a true member of the party, as he claimed, he would understand that the decision served the NPP’s interest.

According to Mr Owusu-Afriyie, popularly called Sir John, when the decision was about to be made, Mr Pianim was invited but he declined to attend.

He was emphatic that there would be no emergency congress to reverse the decision, saying that in his opinion, the decision was final.

He criticised Mr Pianim for using strong words to describe the decision of the national executive committee of the party.

Mr Pianim said the NPP’s decision was an affront to the rule of law, adding that the party was going down “a dangerous slope” as a result of the boycott.

He said according to the laws of the land, the President was legitimately elected until declared otherwise by the Supreme Court.

“It is not NPP members that legitimise a President. It is the people of Ghana and the Electoral Commission,” he said, and added that until the court declared that President Mahama was not legitimately elected, it was the duty of all to accord him recognition and respect.

He said the NPP was a party of the rule of law and needed not depart from its long-held traditional beliefs.

He accused the NPP leadership of “not thinking logically” and said although he supported its action at the Supreme Court, he was of the view that its boycott of some events linked to the President was not in its interest.

Last month, a former Chief Executive of the Volta River Authority (VRA) and NPP stalwart, Dr Charles Wereko-Brobbey, urged the party to abandon its case at the Supreme Court and concentrate on coming up with strategies for the 2016 election.

He was of the view that having endorsed the pink sheets at the polling stations, a signal that the party was in agreement with the results, it was illogical for it to turn around and challenge the results.

Dr Wereko-Brobbey said by endorsing the forms at the polling stations, the NPP had “signed its own death warrant”.

He also expressed doubt over the court ruling in favour of the NPP.

His statement, however, appeared not to have gone down well with some NPP members, who descended heavily on him and again questioned his party credentials.

The Minority, in furtherance of its position not to recognise the legitimacy of the President, boycotted the proceedings of the Appointments Committee and also questioned the legitimacy of the appointees.

Although the party has said it would not recognise President Mahama and any of the ministers appointed by him, in a surprise and contradictory move in Parliament on Friday, February 22, 2013, its representatives in the House listed questions to be posed to ministers of state on Wednesday, February 27, 2013.

For example, Mr Patrick Yaw Boamah (NPP, Okaikoi Central) intended to ask the Minister of Road and Highways what measures the ministry was putting in place to prevent accidents and also ensure adequate pedestrian safety on the George Walker Bush Highway.

Another MP, Mr Kennedy Nyarko Osei (NPP, Akim Swedru), had submitted a question which sought to enquire from the minister what plans he had towards reconstructing the Akim Swedru-Achiase road.

The move shocked some members of the Majority, who questioned the logic in the action by the Minority.

 Just after the Majority Leader, Dr Benjamin Kunbuor, had read the business statement, some Majority MPs rose to their feet to question the action of the Minority group.

The MP for Nantong, Murtala Mohammed,  sought to know whether the Minority had the right to pose questions to a minister appointed by a President they had described as illegitimate and refused to recognise.

The second was Mr Samuel Okudzeto-Ablakwa, who described the Minority’s action as “illogical”,  “incongruous” and  lacking in principle.

He said the lack of principle regarding the issue on the part of the Minority was likely to bring the name of Parliament into disrepute.

 Mr Adjaho, however,  ruled that every MP had the right to pose questions to any minister of state.

“Their refusal to take part in the public hearings is an entirely different matter. I have the power to admit questions and once that person is a Member of Parliament, he has the right to pose questions to ministers,” he said.

Story by Mark-Anthony Vinorkor