Martin Kpebu Challenges Speaker's Authority to Suspend MPs, Seeks Legal Action

Legal practitioner Martin Kpebu has raised serious concerns about the Speaker of Parliament’s authority to suspend Members of Parliament (MPs), suggesting that such actions could establish a dangerous precedent in Ghana’s legislative procedures.

The issue at hand emerged after Speaker Alban Bagbin decided to suspend four MPs—Frank Annoh-Dompreh (Nsawam-Adoagyiri), Alhassan Tampuli Sulemana (Gushegu), Jerry Ahmed Shaib (Weija-Gbawe), and Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor (South Dayi)—for their involvement in chaotic disruptions during a recent ministerial vetting session. The vetting, which was meant to evaluate President John Mahama’s ministerial nominees, saw significant disorder, leading to the Speaker’s decision to suspend the MPs for their disruptive behavior.

Kpebu, discussing the matter on TV3’s The Key Points, questioned whether the Speaker had the legal authority to impose such long suspensions on MPs without explicit constitutional backing. According to Kpebu, the law does not grant the Speaker the power to unilaterally suspend MPs for extended periods, and as such, the decision could be deemed unlawful. He argued that this issue poses significant constitutional challenges and urged the affected MPs to seek legal recourse.

“This decision is deeply problematic. The Speaker does have a responsibility to maintain order in Parliament, but barring MPs from participation for two weeks without clear constitutional authorization is excessive,” Kpebu stated. “If this decision is allowed to stand, it could set a dangerous precedent and be used arbitrarily in the future.”

Kpebu’s concerns reflect a broader issue of legal and constitutional interpretation, as he emphasized that such powers, if not clearly defined, could lead to potential misuse in the future. He called for clarity and caution in the use of authority within Parliament, warning that it should not be exercised beyond its constitutional bounds.

In addition to the legal debate surrounding the suspension of MPs, Kpebu also pointed out several structural and procedural problems within Parliament, particularly in the venue used for the Appointments Committee’s vetting of ministerial nominees. Kpebu criticized the cramped, poorly ventilated conference room, which he claimed was unsuitable for such a critical process. He noted that some air conditioners in the room were not functioning, and the space quickly became uncomfortably warm.

Describing the conditions, Kpebu said, “The room was far too small for the number of people present. Some air conditioners weren’t even working, and within minutes, people were drenched in sweat. It felt like a death trap.” He argued that the uncomfortably tight space and lack of proper facilities made it difficult for MPs, nominees, and the public to effectively participate in the vetting process. He highlighted the importance of a well-ventilated, spacious environment that would allow for better engagement, transparency, and focus during such important sessions.

Kpebu further suggested that future ministerial vetting sessions should be moved to a larger venue capable of accommodating at least 1,000 people. He stressed that public participation is critical for transparency, democratic governance, and accountability in the vetting process. “A larger venue would not only allow MPs and nominees to work more comfortably but would also enable greater public access and participation,” he said.

He concluded by emphasizing that such changes would improve the overall efficiency of parliamentary proceedings and contribute to the creation of a more accountable and transparent political system. A larger, more accessible venue would ensure that the public could actively witness and engage with the legislative processes that affect them.

Overall, Kpebu’s remarks offer a two-pronged critique: one focused on the legal authority of the Speaker to suspend MPs without clear constitutional justification, and the other on the structural inadequacies within Parliament that hinder effective public participation. He called for both legal clarity and improvements in the physical environment of Parliament to ensure that democratic processes remain transparent, accessible, and in accordance with the Constitution.