Bagbin Should Have Waited – Freddie Blay

Former three-time First Deputy Speaker, Hon Fredie Blay, has poured cold water on the decision by Speaker of Parliament Rt Hon. Alban Bagbin to declare the seats of four Members of Parliament (MPs) vacant.

The Speaker’s move on Thursday, prompted by the Members’ decision to run as independent in in December 7 pending national electiins according to him- contravenes Articles 97(1)(g) and (h) of the Constitution provided intense debate in and outside Parliament.

But the experience d parliamentarian and lawyer, (Fridie Blay) has described the move as unfortunate and has the tendency of stifling the development of democracy in the country.

Expressing his disappointment over the Speaker’s move in an interview, the experienced lawyer said “What is happening in Parliament is not good. It doesn’t in any way help the development of Parliamentary democracy. It’s unfortunate, taking into account even the fact that we have just two months to Elections.

He contended that “When one files for nomination to participate in the December 7 Election, it is the expression of desire of what one wants to do, come January 2025 Parliamentary Session.

“When you file your nomination with the EC, you are not crossing carpet now. You are giving tonotice to the public that you want to participate in an election which will result in what you want to do, come 2025.”

He added, merely filing papers does not mean you have changed your allegence or crossed carpet within this period of your four year tenure because those who are members of parliament started from say 2021 to 25, it does not mean l have done it from 2021 to 2024.

“Even if the party decides to sack you for expressing your intentions to another party, they can’t ask you to leave Parliament, according to me, unless you decide yourself, but that should be within now. But if you say come 2025, I will change party, and go elsewhere, it doesn’t mean I am going now before the end of the session.If l do that it doesn’t mean l should be penalized.”

He mentioned that “Article 97 (g) says if you decide to leave within your tenue, they will tell you are crossing carpet so leave. But if you say I am not doing so within my tenure but next session, nothing prevents you. Party may not be happy with you.

” It was unnecessary for the Speaker to take that decision, he should have waited for Supreme Court’s interpretation if he finds that controversial, his move could amount to disorder and constitutional lawlessness.

” For Speaker to get rid of four MP’s because according to him they intend to chane their loyalty to which ever party they belong to now, or even go independent constitute breach of their obligations- I don’t think so and totally disagree.”

” It is not healthy, at this crucial time that Parliament is hanged, it amounts to constitutional lawlessness, it doesn’t help democracy .”

However, he takes delight in the fact that the matter is before court saying, “Fortunately, it is going to the Supreme Court, the only body that interpretes the construction- l am convinced the law lords will right the wrong. “