The Member of Parliament for Old Tafo, Vincent Ekow Assafuah, has strongly criticized the decision by Speaker Alban Bagbin to suspend four Members of Parliament, arguing that the move lacks legal and constitutional justification.
The suspension, announced in the aftermath of chaotic scenes at a vetting session on January 30, 2025, has sparked heated controversy, with the Minority in Parliament condemning it as an abuse of power and a dangerous attack on democracy.
The affected MPs include Majority Chief Whip Frank Annoh-Dompreh, Minority Chief Whip Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, Alhassan Sulemana Tampuli, and Jerry Ahmed Shaib. Their suspension followed violent confrontations during an Appointments Committee sitting, where tensions escalated into a breakdown of order and decorum. Speaker Bagbin justified his decision as a necessary disciplinary measure to maintain order in Parliament, arguing that it was within his authority to take such action.
However, Assafuah has strongly opposed the Speaker’s decision, arguing that it sets a dangerous precedent and lacks any firm legal foundation. Speaking on Channel One TV’s The Big Issue, he insisted that the Speaker had no basis in law or parliamentary procedure to take such an action. According to him, the suspension violates the principles of fairness and due process.
“In Order 130 of the Standing Orders of Parliament, at any point in time when you feel something has to be suspended, the first instance is four days, the next is eight days, and the last instance is twelve days. Nowhere in the Standing Orders will you find anything like two weeks. So, the Speaker has no basis or reason to even go on the tangent he went,” Assafuah explained.
He further accused the Speaker of overstepping his authority by acting as the complainant, judge, and decision-maker in the matter, arguing that no law grants him such sweeping powers. He referenced various constitutional provisions and parliamentary rules to support his position, insisting that Speaker Bagbin had acted outside the limits of his role.
“There is nowhere in our laws where you will find the Speaker of Parliament having the power to suspend people. In fact, in all the constitutional provisions I have read—Article 116, Article 43 of the 1992 Constitution, the Standing Orders of Parliament, and every other law I have read—the Speaker of Parliament does not have the power to make pronouncements unilaterally; being the judge, being the complainant, and at the same time hearing complaints and making a pronouncement on it to suspend people.
“This has never happened in our country. This is alien to our law, unacceptable, and it should not have happened,” he stated.
Assafuah clarified that his criticism of the Speaker’s decision does not excuse the actions of the MPs during the vetting session. He acknowledged that their behavior may have been inappropriate but insisted that the correct legal procedures should have been followed in addressing the issue.
“I am not in any way approving what happened, but I am just saying that due process should have been followed. In the absence of due process, it makes nonsense of everything that you are doing,” he added.
The suspension of the MPs has sparked a larger debate over the extent of the Speaker’s authority and the balance of power within Parliament. Some political analysts have argued that Speaker Bagbin’s decision, whether justified or not, highlights the need for clearer interpretations of parliamentary rules to avoid similar disputes in the future.
The controversy has also drawn strong reactions from both the Majority and Minority caucuses. The Minority, in particular, has described the suspension as an unfair and politically motivated move designed to suppress opposition voices. Some have called for an immediate reversal of the decision, arguing that it undermines the democratic principles of fairness and accountability.
The Majority, while divided on the issue, has also expressed concerns about the precedent that Speaker Bagbin’s action sets for future parliamentary discipline. Some have suggested that if the Speaker can unilaterally suspend MPs without a clear legal framework, it could lead to further political instability within the House.
As Parliament prepares to reconvene, the fate of the suspended MPs remains uncertain. Some reports suggest that legal action could be taken to challenge the Speaker’s decision, with some MPs exploring the possibility of petitioning the Parliamentary Service Board or even the Supreme Court to rule on the matter. If challenged in court, the case could set a significant precedent for the interpretation of parliamentary disciplinary powers in Ghana.
Legal experts and constitutional scholars are already weighing in on the matter, with some arguing that while the Speaker has broad authority to maintain order in Parliament, any disciplinary measures must be rooted in established laws and procedures. Others believe that the Standing Orders should be reviewed to eliminate any ambiguities regarding disciplinary actions against MPs.
Public reactions to the controversy have been mixed. Some Ghanaians support Speaker Bagbin’s decision, arguing that strong disciplinary action is necessary to prevent disorderly conduct in Parliament. They contend that if MPs are allowed to engage in physical confrontations without consequences, it could erode the credibility of the legislature.
However, others agree with Assafuah’s position, insisting that parliamentary discipline should be handled through proper legal channels rather than unilateral decisions. Some fear that allowing the Speaker to exercise such powers without clear legal backing could open the door for future abuse of authority.
Beyond the legal and political implications, the incident has once again brought attention to the rising tensions within Ghana’s Parliament. Recent years have seen increasing partisanship and heated exchanges between the Majority and Minority sides, often leading to disruptions during critical proceedings. The latest suspension only adds to the growing concerns about governance and the stability of parliamentary processes.
With pressure mounting from both within and outside Parliament, it remains to be seen whether Speaker Bagbin will reconsider his decision or stand by it despite the mounting opposition. The coming weeks are expected to be crucial in determining how this issue will be resolved and what long-term impact it will have on parliamentary governance in Ghana.
As discussions continue, one thing is certain: the controversy over the suspension of MPs has reignited debates about the limits of parliamentary authority and the importance of following due process. Whatever the final outcome, this incident is likely to leave a lasting impact on Ghana’s political landscape, shaping future discussions on parliamentary discipline and governance.
