Private legal practitioner lawyer Tachie Antiedu has disagreed with the decision by the Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin to refer the censure motion to remove Ken Ofori-Atta, to an ad-hoc committee.
The lawyer explained that Article 82 of the 1992 Constitution confers the power of censorship of a Minister or Deputy Minister on Parliament.
The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, on Thursday, November 10, 2022, set up an ad hoc committee to investigate the allegations in the Minority Caucus’ motion of censure against the embattled Minister of Finance, Ken Ofori-Atta.
According to the Speaker, the committee will allow the Finance Minister to respond to conflicts of interest raised by the Minority Leader, Haruna Iddrisu.
Dominic Ayine, NDC Member of Parliament for Bolgatanga East, and KT Hammond, NPP Member of Parliament for Adansi-Asokwa, will co-chair the committee, which must report to the House within seven (7) days.
But in the opinion of the lawyer, ”Though Order 106 permits reference of a censure motion to a Committee, I hold the view that such referral be appropriately confined to the motion for removal of the President and Vice President.
The reason is that Article 69 sets out the grounds for removal of the President which may be inquired into in cases of no or insufficient evidence.
In the case of removal of a Minister or Deputy Minister, no such grounds have been stated. The implication is that Parliament can pass a vote of censorship against a Minister or Deputy Minister without citing any reason or adducing any evidence to establish the existence or non-existence of any ground. Hence, nothing to be inquired into by a committee.”
Read his full opinion below
ON REFERRAL OF CENSURE MOTION AGAINST HON OFORI ATTA
I respectfully disagree with the referral of the Censure Motion on Hon Ken ofori-Atta even though the referral was made in accordance with Order 106 of the Standing Orders of Parliament. Article 82 of the 1992 Constitution confers the power of censorship of a Minister or Deputy Minister on Parliament. This provision goes ahead to set out the procedure (or steps) that Parliament must follow to exercise this power. This procedure is reproduced in Order 108 of the Standing Orders of Parliament. As part of the procedure, the concerned Minister is entitled to be heard during the debate on the censure motion. This provision aligns with Article 111 of the Constitution which permits Ministers and Deputy Ministers to participate in Parliamentary proceedings except voting.
Though Order 106 permits reference of a censure motion to a Committee, I hold the view that such referral be appropriately confined to the motion for removal of the President and Vice President. The reason is that Article 69 sets out the grounds for removal of the President which may be inquired into in cases of no or insufficient evidence. In the case of removal of a Minister or Deputy Minister, no such grounds have been stated. The implication is that Parliament can pass a vote of censorship against a Minister or Deputy Minister without citing any reason or adducing any evidence to establish the existence or non-existence of any ground. Hence, nothing to be inquired into by a committee. Lawyer B T Antiedu, Author of READING THE LAW
By: Rainbowradioonline.com/Ghana
