THE MINORITY BOYCOTTED THE VETTING PROCESS IN PARLIAMENT,WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THEIR ACTION ON THE INDEPENDENCE OF PARLIAMENT AND GHANA’S DEMOCRACY IN GENERAL.

       Following the declaration of the 2012 Presidential election results in the favor of incumbent government the National Democratic Congress (NDC) ,of which President John Dramani Mahama was leader and flag bearer by the Chairman of the Electoral Commission ,the New Patriotic Party(NPP) in accordance with Article 64 clause one of the 1992 constitution of Ghana ,decided to challenge the validity and legitimacy of the President-elect for what they describe as Electoral Fraud in favor of the National Democratic Congress by the Electoral Commission.

       The NPP leadership has since filed a petition to the Supreme Court against the EC and the NDC, and is awaiting the ruling and verdict of the court on the matter. They currently have a little over a hundred and twenty seats in parliament which automatically makes them the largest minority group as opposed to a little over a hundred and forty for the NDC, making them the majority in the sixth parliament of the Fourth Republic.

       Consequently, the New Patriotic Party and its leadership have been engaging in sporadic and selective boycotts of Parliamentary activities related directly with the President-elect and his government ,despite filing their petitions in the court .Notable among such ill-informed boycotts ,as I would want to call them include ;Their conspicuous absence at the swearing-in ceremony of the president-elect as declared by the Electoral Commission, Their failure to represent on the vetting committee to properly scrutinize the president’s nominations and ministerial appointees and most recently their walkout on the president and parliament during his delivery of the State of the Nation address on 21^st February , 2013.

     For the purposes of this academic exercise I would be focusing on the minority’s boycott of the vetting process. Usually in Ghana, after elections are held and results declared, the president elect makes nominations and appointments to various ministerial offices prior to parliamentary approval in accordance with Article 78 clause one of the constitution, and it was same when president-elect in the eyes of everyone except the NPP, made nominations and appointments of people to occupy ministerial portfolios in his government .Vetting of these persons were to have been done by the appointments committee made up of members of parliament from both the divides ;NPP  and NDC ,but the members of the minority as they hinted ,boycotted the vetting sessions on the basis that, they would be legitimizing the same president whose election they are challenging in court if they participated in it .This allowed the appointees and nominees have a field day at the overly one-sided vetting sessions to the worry of many Ghanaians.

      Apparently, the NPP MP’s who should have represented on the committee for the vetting exercise had been directed by the National Executives of the NPP outside of parliament to boycott the vetting against the wills of some NPP  members on the committee which was alluded to and vehemently condemned by one of their own Mr. Kennedy Agyapong .He said though some members of the party were against the decision ,they were forced to do so and that he would not have yielded to such caprices ,but would have been at the vetting to “strip” naked some of the appointees ,he therefore lambasted his colleagues for acting according to the  dictates of the National Executives of the party outside of parliament which did not allow them properly scrutinize the appointees ,and rather allowed them have a free ride to minister ship ,he again added that but for his trip to Sierra Leone ,he would have been there to pose the real questions to the appointees-source:4^th February 2013’s edition of the Daily Graphic.

    Instead of scrutinizing the nominees, the one-sided vetting committee members wasted literally all the allotted time for the vetting of each nominee and appointee for acknowledging the presence of friends, family, chiefs and other supporters of the appointees. Uninspiring and unconvincing as they may have been, they were always going to be approved by the committee anyway and so whether or not the minority had represented and asked all the tough and hard hitting questions would just have been a formality as has been the case for quite some time in Ghana .But come to think of it, the presence of the minority would have shaken the appointees and the real questions would have been put to them, which in turn would have triggered the proper responses. For instance the harmless question to the Attorney General Nominee, Madam Marietta Brew about how she was going to ensure that dubious judgment debts are not paid by the state under her stewardship which was overruled by the Chairman of the committee, Mr. Ebo Barton Oduro, for some reason would not have stood had the minority been present (my opinion).

       They (NPP) would be cursing their stars and regretting in the event the court ruling goes against them, because in the long run, these appointees and ministers who had a free ride during the overly one-sided vetting, would be the ones making decisions and implementing policies on their behalf and on the behalf of all Ghanaians.

IMPLICATIONS THIS BIZZARE POSTURE BY THE NPP HAS ON THE INDEPENDENCE OF PARLIAMENT AND DEMOCRACY OF THE COUNTRY.

       The NPP’s decision to engage in selective boycotting and effectively boycotting the vetting process betrays the very independent nature of Parliament. Though parliament is thought to be independent in its functions and dealings, this act by the minority smacks of external manipulation and control because the boycott was informed and directed by the National Executives of the NPP, who do not form a part of parliament. This was not in the interest of the public and the people (constituents) who voted these members of parliament into office. The fact that the minority members on the committee were coerced to carry out the boycott they ideally would not have indulged in, smacks of indecisiveness on the part of the MP’s which Mr. Kennedy Agyapong clearly laments. Had the minority members on the committee represented at the vetting, it would have further strengthened the case for the independence of parliament in Ghana. This is a bad precedent that has been set, and others who find themselves in similar situations in future, might just follow suit which is very worrying.

       Already, the NPP must be commended for taking the right approach to seek redress to their electoral grievances which is visiting the Supreme Court instead of resorting to violent means of mass destruction. Other African countries that have gotten to such brinks have resorted to the latter and we all know what the result has been. This act (using the courts to seek redress) by the NPP gives a plus to our Democratic credentials, to mean that we are matured as a country; another precedent has been set, albeit a good one. However inconsistent they (NPP) may have been in all of these, I believe actions have been taken, decisions have been made and useful lessons have been learnt.

POSITIVES

Good precedents for the future, people who might find themselves in such situations would just use this as reference and follow.

The minority boycott of the vetting spared us any possible verbal attacks that could have erupted during the vetting as a result of their political bitterness towards the majority.

Further enhanced the general democratic credentials of the country our maturity and adherence to the rule of law.

NEGATIVES

The boycott smacks of disregard for the people (constituents) who voted these MP’s into parliament, because their primary function is to represent the people and make good laws on their behalf and not to because of some partisan and parochial interests, act against their wishes and not in consultation with them, after all not all the members of their various constituencies are NPP members.

NPP’s boycott allowed the ministerial appointees and nominees dodge proper double-sided scrutiny and have a free ride into ministership, covering up the frailties they may have had.

A dent on the independent existence of parliament (external influence and manipulation from the NPP, outside of parliament)

Did not allow for nominees to give detailed explanations to issues they should have really delved deep into for us to know their capabilities and visions so we could hold them accountable when they fail to deliver.

Summed up the inconsistent posture of the Minority in all of parliamentary activities, in one breath, they boycott the swearing in of the president elect, in another breath, they boycott vetting of ministerial appointees, and in another breath sit in parliament and approve the MP’s rent allowance act from the Executive because they were directly benefitting from it in that, they were as well going to take home some 50,000 or so Ghana cedis ,and then in another breath, they walkout on the president and parliament during the delivery of the state of the nation address, summing up their inconsistent and contradictory posture over the period.

Did not really define democracy in its strictest sense, because the views, wishes and ideas of the people (constituents) were not taken into consideration in order to inform their boycott. Not all the constituents of these MP’s agree to this kind of posture, after all not all of them are NPP members .

REFERENCES-Daily Graphic, 4th February 2013 edition, The 1992 Constitution of Ghana.