This afternoon, the Speaker of Parliament made an unprecedented decision by declaring the seats of four Members of Parliament vacant. The justification given was that these MPs had filed nominations to contest under different political banners. However, this move, in my view, is premature and lacks a solid basis. At the time of the Speaker’s pronouncement, none of these MPs had formally notified either the Speaker or the House of any change in their political alignment.

It is important to understand that filing a nomination to contest future elections, whether as an independent candidate or under the banner of another political party, does not automatically equate to a severance of ties with one's current party in Parliament. The act of filing a nomination is merely a declaration of intent for future political aspirations and does not, in any way, alter the MP's present commitments or obligations. The balance in the House, which stood at 137-137-1 prior to the filing of nominations, remains unchanged after the filings.

Indeed, there are interesting days ahead, as the majority in Parliament has already indicated its intent to challenge this self-serving and hasty ruling by the Speaker at the Supreme Court. The implications of such a ruling are too significant to be left unquestioned. At the same time, I cannot help but agree with the Speaker’s statement that "when you plant evil, you will reap evil." The truth is that the seeds of division and political expediency sown by some self-serving members of the majority have led us to this very moment, where we now face the consequences of those actions.

Parliamentary allegiance is defined by the conduct and actions of MPs during their current term in office, not by future intentions. Until an MP formally declares a change of party affiliation or resigns, their duties and responsibilities remain intact, and they continue to serve under the mandate given to them by the electorate. To interpret the act of filing a nomination for a future election as evidence of severing current political ties is a misunderstanding of the law.

Article 97(1)(g) of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous: it focuses on actions that upset the numerical composition of Parliament, ensuring that MPs cannot unilaterally change the electoral outcome during their term. When voters decide on a 137-137-1 balance in the House, that decision must be upheld. Any moves that alter this balance mid-term would require an MP to vacate their seat. However, future plans, such as running under a different party in the next election, do not affect the current balance and, therefore, should not be grounds for losing a seat.

The principle here is clear: the law aims to ensure stability in parliamentary representation throughout an MP’s term. It does not preclude future political aspirations, as these have no bearing on the current term. The timing of actions matters; Article 97(1)(g) addresses an MP’s present affiliations during their term, not aspirations that may take effect in the next electoral cycle. Extending the law to penalize MPs for future political ambitions would unjustly restrict their ability to plan their careers beyond the present term.

Furthermore, it is crucial to note that questions surrounding the vacation of seats are within the jurisdiction of the High Court, not the Speaker of Parliament. While certain situations such as death or resignation are handled directly by parliamentary authorities, determinations regarding an MP's political affiliation, especially in cases like this, require a thorough legal examination beyond the Speaker’s authority.

In conclusion, the law is designed to protect the mandate given to an MP during their current term, ensuring that voters' trust is honoured. Future political plans do not violate this mandate and, as such, should not be grounds for a premature declaration of a vacancy in Parliament.

Asempa y3 Short!!!

PRINCE A. A. SADAT

(NPP National Youth Wing Administrator)

Powered by Froala Editor