Ghana MP Ohene Kwame Frimpong: Parliamentary Seat Fate in Question

• Legal practitioner Martin Kpebu suggests a constitutional provision regarding MP attendance could determine the fate of Asante Akyem North MP Ohene Kwame Frimpong's parliamentary seat.
• Ohene Kwame Frimpong has reportedly not obtained written permission from the Speaker of Parliament for his absences.
• The 1992 Constitution and Parliament's Standing Orders establish that the Speaker cannot permit an MP to be absent for more than 15 sittings without risking forfeiture of the seat.
• Kpebu argues Frimpong's situation is more precarious because he reportedly sought no permission at all.

Article 97(1)(c) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana stipulates that a Member of Parliament shall vacate their seat if they are absent, without the permission in writing of the Speaker, and are unable to offer a reasonable explanation to the Parliamentary Committee on Privileges, for fifteen sittings of a meeting of Parliament.

Private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu recently offered his legal perspective on the precarious position of Asante Akyem North Member of Parliament, Ohene Kwame Frimpong. Mr. Frimpong, who is currently detained, faces the potential forfeiture of his parliamentary seat, a situation Kpebu believes could be significantly influenced by a specific 2008 Court of Appeal ruling. This commentary was made during an appearance on JoyNews’ Top Story, where Kpebu highlighted the critical detail that Mr. Frimpong has reportedly failed to secure written permission from the Speaker of Parliament for his prolonged absences from legislative sittings.

The absence of formal authorization from the Speaker places Ohene Kwame Frimpong in a particularly vulnerable position regarding his continued tenure as a Ghana MP. Kpebu argued that the circumstances surrounding Frimpong's current situation are potentially more severe than those considered in the precedent-setting case, primarily because there is no indication that any permission was even sought. This lack of engagement with parliamentary protocols for absence could directly impact the fate of the Ohene Kwame Frimpong parliamentary seat.

The legal precedent central to this discussion is the constitutional provision and parliamentary standing orders regarding MP attendance. Article 97(1)(c) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana stipulates that a Member of Parliament shall vacate their seat if they are absent, without the Speaker's written permission and a reasonable explanation to the Parliamentary Committee on Privileges, for fifteen sittings of a meeting of Parliament. Similarly, Order 17(1) of the Standing Orders of the Parliament of Ghana states that a Member shall not absent themselves for more than fifteen sittings without the Speaker's written permission. This rule sets a clear, strict limit on the Speaker's discretion, underscoring the importance of consistent attendance for elected representatives. The principle therefore serves as a critical benchmark for evaluating cases of prolonged parliamentary absence, particularly when considering the potential for Ghana parliamentary seat forfeiture.

Martin Kpebu's analysis underscores the gravity of Ohene Kwame Frimpong's reported failure to obtain permission for his absences. According to Kpebu, the fact that Frimpong has reportedly not even requested leave from the Speaker makes his situation "even worse" than scenarios where an MP might have sought permission but exceeded the 15-sitting limit. This distinction is crucial, as it suggests a fundamental disregard for the procedural requirements governing parliamentary attendance.

The strict interpretation of the rules, as laid out in the 1992 Constitution and Parliament's Standing Orders, leaves little room for maneuver when an MP's absence is unauthorized. The potential for the Ohene Kwame Frimpong parliamentary seat to be declared vacant is a stark reminder to all Members of Parliament about the stringent nature of their attendance obligations. This scenario highlights the critical importance for Ghana MPs to adhere to established protocols for any absence, ensuring that the integrity of the legislative process is maintained and avoiding the risk of Ghana MP absence without permission leading to severe consequences.

Lawyers advising Ghanaian Members of Parliament or political parties should note the strict interpretation of parliamentary attendance rules and the Speaker's limited discretion regarding absences, as reinforced by the Prof. Stephen Kwaku Asare v Attorney-General ruling, to mitigate risks of seat forfeiture.

Source: Original reporting via JoyNews’ Top Story