Former Majority Leader Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu has strongly criticised Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin’s decision to suspend four Members of Parliament following the chaotic scenes that unfolded during the vetting session on Thursday, January 30, 2025.
Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu questioned the Speaker’s authority to impose such sanctions, arguing that neither the Standing Orders of Parliament nor the Constitution grants him such power. He expressed his concerns in an interview with Joy News on Saturday, where he acknowledged certain procedural aspects but firmly opposed the Speaker’s course of action.
“The Speaker is right to have availed himself of the imperative of Order 342 of the new Standing Orders,” he stated. However, he challenged the foundation of the Speaker’s authority, posing a crucial question: “Now the question to ask is from where the Speaker is deriving his authority. Neither the Standing Orders nor the Constitution grants the Speaker any of such authority.”
According to the former Majority Leader, Bagbin’s decision raises serious legal and procedural concerns. He argued that the Speaker had overstepped his bounds, acting beyond the scope of his mandate. “The Speaker has not only jumped the gun but has gone outside the prescription of the law to impose his sanction. His own attitude and conduct is questionable,” Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu remarked.
The suspension of the four MPs has sparked intense debate within the political space, with various stakeholders weighing in on the Speaker’s decision. While some support the move as a necessary step to restore order in Parliament, others, like Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu, see it as an overreach of power.
This development comes at a time when Parliament remains a crucial battleground for major political decisions. The controversy surrounding the vetting session, which led to the suspension, underscores the heightened tensions between the Majority and Minority sides.
Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu’s criticism adds to the growing concerns about parliamentary leadership and governance. His remarks reflect a broader sentiment among some legislators who believe that Speaker Bagbin’s handling of disciplinary issues requires deeper scrutiny.
The four suspended MPs have yet to respond to the Speaker’s decision formally, but their suspension has already drawn significant attention from legal and political analysts. Some experts argue that the Speaker acted within his discretionary powers to maintain order, while others insist that any punitive measures must strictly adhere to legal provisions.
The role of the Speaker in maintaining parliamentary discipline has been a subject of debate in Ghana’s political landscape. As the head of the legislature, the Speaker is expected to ensure order and decorum, but critics argue that such powers must be exercised within the confines of the law.
Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu’s stance suggests that this latest controversy could set a precedent for future parliamentary disputes. The matter may likely be discussed further within parliamentary circles, with some MPs possibly pushing for a review of the decision.
With Parliament set to reconvene soon, all eyes will be on how the leadership handles this issue moving forward. The implications of the suspension could go beyond the immediate affected MPs, potentially shaping future interpretations of the Speaker’s authority in disciplinary matters.
As the debate rages on, the key question remains: does the Speaker have the power to unilaterally suspend MPs, or has he overstepped his mandate? This issue is likely to remain a significant talking point in the coming weeks, with both legal and political consequences at stake.
Political analysts suggest that the controversy highlights the need for clarity in the interpretation of parliamentary rules. While Order 342 of the new Standing Orders grants the Speaker some level of authority, there are concerns about whether it provides enough grounds for unilateral suspensions. Some have called for a review of the Standing Orders to eliminate any ambiguities that could lead to conflicts in the future.
Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu, a seasoned legislator with years of experience in parliamentary affairs, has maintained that Speaker Bagbin should have sought alternative means of addressing the situation rather than imposing suspensions. According to him, the Speaker should have referred the matter to the Privileges Committee, which is responsible for handling cases of misconduct by MPs.
This development also raises concerns about the nature of parliamentary proceedings and how disciplinary actions are enforced. While the Speaker is tasked with ensuring order, there is an ongoing debate about whether punitive measures should be decided unilaterally or through a consultative process involving the leadership of both sides of the House.
Some lawmakers have expressed concerns that the Speaker’s decision could set a dangerous precedent where parliamentary discipline becomes subject to individual interpretations rather than established legal frameworks. Others, however, argue that firm action is needed to maintain decorum in Parliament, especially in the face of increasing tensions during critical sessions such as vetting processes.
Public reactions to the suspension have been mixed. Supporters of the Speaker argue that he acted in the best interest of Parliament by ensuring that disorderly conduct does not go unpunished. They believe that without decisive action, parliamentary proceedings could become chaotic and unmanageable. However, critics insist that any form of disciplinary action must be backed by legal justification to prevent abuse of power.
The controversy also draws attention to the broader issue of political partisanship in Parliament. Ghana’s legislature has, in recent years, seen heightened political tensions, particularly between the two major parties. The Speaker’s decision, whether justified or not, is likely to be viewed through a partisan lens, with each side interpreting it in a manner that aligns with their political interests.
The suspended MPs, whose identities are yet to be officially disclosed, are expected to challenge the decision in the coming days. There are speculations that they might petition the Parliamentary Service Board or seek legal redress if they believe their suspension was unfairly imposed.
As discussions continue, legal experts and constitutional scholars are weighing in on the matter, with some suggesting that Ghana’s parliamentary rules need further refinement to prevent future disputes of this nature. The situation has also renewed interest in constitutional reforms that could provide clearer guidelines on the extent of the Speaker’s disciplinary powers.
For now, the focus remains on how Parliament will handle the aftermath of the suspensions. If the decision is challenged, it could lead to a landmark ruling on the powers of the Speaker in disciplining MPs. Whatever the outcome, this case will undoubtedly influence parliamentary governance in the years to come.
With Parliament scheduled to resume soon, the controversy is far from over. The political ramifications could extend beyond the current administration, affecting future Speakers and how they manage legislative affairs. The outcome of this issue will be closely watched by politicians, legal experts, and the general public alike, as it could shape the direction of parliamentary discipline and governance in Ghana.
