Godfred Yeboah Dame
Two people have filed a writ at the Supreme Court challenging the privileges the Speaker of Parliament, Members and Clerk to Parliament enjoy, as guaranteed by the 1992 Constitution.
The writ filed by Hilda Mansuwa Kpentey Dongotey and Albert Gyamfi against the Attorney General is contending that upon a proper interpretation of Article 117 of the 1992 Constitution, the Speaker, MPs and Clerk to Parliament are not granted immunity from arrest for any offence they commit while they are on their way to, attending at or returning from any proceedings of Parliament.
According to the applicants, upon a proper interpretation of Article 117 of the 1992 Constitution, the Speaker, MPs and Clerk to Parliament are not granted immunity from warrantless arrest, restriction or detention while they are on their way to, attending at or returning from any proceedings of Parliament.
The writ comes in the wake of public outcry about the privileges conferred on Members of Parliament by the constitution and the rigorous procedures the police have to go through to arrest offending members when they are alleged to have been involved in an offence or when needed to assist in investigations.
The latest of such incident is the back and forth between the police and the MP for Madina, Francis Xavier Sosu, who has evaded arrest after allegation that he had instigated some of his constituents to block roads during a demonstration in the area.
The police have had to resort to a criminal summon issued by a court but the MP has failed to show up in court and the Speaker has written twice to the court to inform it that the MP was attending parliamentary sessions as well as honouring a parliamentary duty in the United States of America.
Two individuals have now filed a writ before the Apex Court challenging the privilege, arguing that the Speaker, MPs and Clerk to Parliament are not on their way to, attending at or returning from any parliamentary proceeding while about their personal affairs or ordinarily engaged in any activities in their constituency.
They are seeking among others, a declaration that “upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 117 and 118(1) and (2) of the 1992 Constitution, an authorised officer of a court or process server does not require the leave or certificate of the Speaker of Parliament to serve or execute a civil or criminal process on the Speaker or Deputy Speaker or a member or Clerk to Parliament while he is about his personal affairs or ordinarily engaged in any activities in a constituency.”
They are also seeking a declaration that “upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 117 and 118 of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic, the word attendance or the expression proceedings of Parliament does not extend to the entire duration of a session or meeting of Parliament.”
BY Gibril Abdul Razak