Vacant Seats Controversy: Godfred Dame Criticizes Prof. Oquaye’s Declaration of Fomena Seat as Vacant
In a recent debate surrounding the 2020 parliamentary elections, Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Godfred Yeboah Dame, challenged former Speaker of Parliament Prof. Aaron Mike Oquaye’s decision to declare the Fomena parliamentary seat vacant. Dame argues that Oquaye’s actions were misguided, given constitutional stipulations and the principle of parliamentary representation.
The controversy dates back to October 2020, when the then-Member of Parliament (MP) for Fomena, Andrew Asiamah Amoako, decided to contest the election as an independent candidate after disagreements with the New Patriotic Party (NPP). In response, Prof. Oquaye invoked Article 97(1)(g) of Ghana’s Constitution, which states that an MP must vacate their seat if they join another political party after being elected. Prof. Oquaye interpreted Asiamah’s decision to run as an independent candidate as a breach of this provision and subsequently declared the seat vacant.
However, Godfred Dame disagrees, arguing that Asiamah’s candidacy did not constitute “joining another party,” as outlined in the constitutional article. Speaking at a recent legal forum, Dame contended that contesting as an independent candidate does not equate to crossing party lines or joining a new political group. He suggested that Prof. Oquaye’s interpretation of the law may have been overly restrictive and may have denied the people of Fomena their right to representation in Parliament.
“Declaring a seat vacant is a grave decision,” Dame asserted. “Such decisions must rest on solid legal foundations and respect the voters’ right to choose their representative freely.” According to him, Article 97(1)(g) primarily seeks to prevent MPs from undermining the integrity of parliamentary representation by defecting to another political party mid-term. This provision, Dame argued, does not address cases where an incumbent decides to run as an independent candidate without resigning from Parliament.
The Attorney General’s remarks have sparked discussions about the broader implications of Prof. Oquaye’s decision on parliamentary representation and electoral rights. Many legal analysts and political commentators have weighed in on the issue, with some supporting Dame’s perspective that a strict interpretation of the law may infringe on the rights of both MPs and their constituents.
In a related observation, Dame expressed that this incident underscores the need for Ghana’s Parliament to develop a clearer framework for handling similar cases in the future. He also suggested that lawmakers consider amendments to the relevant constitutional provisions to provide unambiguous guidance on issues concerning party affiliation and parliamentary representation.
For Fomena, the implications of this debate are not merely academic. The constituency ultimately re-elected Asiamah in 2020 as an independent MP, an outcome that bolstered Dame’s argument. To date, Asiamah has returned to the NPP caucus in Parliament but continues to hold his independent status, representing a unique case in Ghana’s parliamentary history.
This issue is likely to remain a significant point of contention, especially with the 2024 elections approaching and heightened attention on political party allegiance and independent candidacies. Both lawmakers and constitutional scholars will be watching closely, as the Fomena incident may shape future interpretations of parliamentary regulations and influence the path forward for Ghana’s democratic representation.
blogpay
Total Comments: 0