SAINT-AYISI SAMUEL

There has been an emphasis on the application of Erskine May Parliamentary Practice as an authoritative source of the Ghana Parliament’s elastic conception of its powers.  Within the purview of the common law applied Worldwide, Erskine May, which is uploaded in by successive clerks of the British Parliament, is widely consulted based on consensus as the leading authority on the law of parliamentary practice.  It can therefore be justified that the application of the Erskine May Parliamentary practice is substantially informed in Ghana’s own Standing Orders.  However, while both Erskine May and English parliamentary precedents may serve as a useful guide for common law parliaments generally, they have no mandate to control the remit of Ghana Parliament’s power. The foundation, of which Westminster Parliament was built on the application of Erskine May Parliamentary Practice, is a “sovereign” Parliament. This can also be described as the total independent an...

There has been a distortion of information and break in communication about the application of parliamentary Standing Orders. Citizens are swimming in a state of confusion as to whether the application of Standing Orders of Parliament directly affects the citizenry in relation to their constructive criticisms which is justified by the 1992 constitution. It must be understood that Parliament cannot, through the use of its Standing Orders, arrogate to itself powers or jurisdiction that it does not constitutionally possess.  Article 110(1) confers on Parliament the power to “regulate its own procedure” through its Standing Orders, also states, appropriately, that this power is “subject to the provisions of this Constitution”.  It must therefore be noted that the power conferred on Parliament by Article 110(1) is to be used by Parliament only to regulate its “procedure”.  Parliament therefore as no jurisdiction to expand or increase the substantive powers bestowed on it by...

There is an irreducible quality in the experience of uncoerced choice which leads men to risk their very lives on its behalf. Whether our choices are good or bad, wise or illogical, we feel diminished as humans if we are prevented from them. Denied freedom to make choices, we are denied responsibility and to deny responsibility is to deny our humanity in cogent and rational terms in the sphere of the World. It is beyond question that our Parliament, like all parliaments, is vested with “the power to punish for contempt.”  The Constitution expressly affirms that fact in Articles 122 and 123. The question that remains to be answered to the public and citizenry is the scope and content of Parliament’s contempt power. Specifically, against whom and for what conduct may Parliament use its contempt power? This equivocal provision of the constitution has resulted in a suspended legal argument as to whether parliament has the sole mandate to cite individuals for contempt of parliament...