Adwoa Safo, other 'absentee' MPs have already vacated their seats – Kwaku Azar explains

Sarah Adwoa Safo 'missing' from Parliament

Kennedy Agyapong, Henry Quartey accused of absenteeism

Pressure mounts on Parliament to address issues of MP absenteeism

A US-based Ghanaian lawyer and scholar, Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare (alias Kwaku Azar) has explained why per the Constitutional provision on absenteeism in Parliament, Sarah Adwoa Safo and two other ‘absentee’ MPs are no longer lawmakers.

In his view, Article 97(1)(c) makes it mandatory and automatic for a seat to be declared vacant after meeting certain conditions.

He contends that any MP who absents themselves from Parliament without express permission from the Speaker should be ‘booted out’ of Parliament for a by-election to be conducted.

“Article 97(1)(c) provides that, “An MP SHALL vacate his seat in Parliament if he is absent, without the permission in writing of the Speaker and he is unable to offer a reasonable explanation to the Parliamentary Committee on Privileges, from fifteen sittings of a meeting of Parliament during any period that Parliament has been summoned to meet and continues to meet.”

"Notice that this calls for a mandatory vacation of an MP’s seat when certain antecedent conditions are met. Second, notice that the abstention regime is meeting specific.

"Third, notice that there is a window within which a reasonable explanation for an unexcused absence can be considered. What does this all mean?

"First, the Constitution frowns upon absence without the permission, in writing, of the Speaker.

"Second, an MP who is absent without the permission of the Speaker has about 15 sittings to fix this problem.

"Third, if the MP does not fix the problem with the Speaker then on the 15th sitting, he vacates his seat automatically unless he takes an affirmative step to provide a reasonable explanation to the Committee on Privileges.

"Notice that the explanation must be reasonable and that has to be determined by the Committee, not the MP.

"Fourth, if the MP does not fix the problem with the Speaker AFTER 15 sittings then the MP has vacated the seat.

"An explanation at this point cannot be considered by the Committee. The explanation has come too late,” he explained.

Kwaku Azar adds that the constitutional provision on absenteeism only accommodates for 15-sittings of absence by an MP however “if you miss 16 or more days during the 43-day sitting, your seat is automatically vacated."

The issue of absenteeism by MPs has become topical following the continuous absence of Dome-Kwabenya MP, Sarah Adwoa Safo and others including Assin Central MP, Kennedy Agyapong and Ayawaso Central MP, Henry Quartey, who have similarly been accused of same.

The have been growing calls for their seats to be declared vacant however that is yet to materialize.

Read Kwaku Azar's full post below:

MPs have a duty to show up to work in Parliament to act on behalf of their constituents’ interests. The taxpayers pay them to provide this service.

The Constitution takes a dim view of lengthy absences of MPs for whatever reason by providing a time frame within which Members are allowed to be absent before their seat becomes vacated.

To understand the rules, one needs to understand a few concepts.

First, the 4-year life of Parliament is divided into 4 sessions, each lasting approximately 12 months.

Second, each session is divided into 3 meetings, each lasting approximately 3 months. The 1st meeting is from January to March; the 2nd meeting is from May to July; and the 3rd meeting is from October to December.

Third, a sitting of Parliament is a period during which Parliament sits continously without adjournment.

On average, Parliament sits for 28 weeks and goes on recess for 24 weeks within a Session. The House sits from Tuesday to Friday, making it an average of 132 Sittings in a Session.

This translates to about 43 sittings in a meeting.

Article 97(1)(c) provides that “An MP SHALL vacate his seat in Parliament if he is absent, without the permission in writing of the Speaker and he is unable to offer a reasonable explanation to the Parliamentary Committee on Privileges, from fifteen sittings of a meeting of Parliament during any period that Parliament has been summoned to meet and continues to meet.”

Notice that this calls for a mandatory vacation of an MP’s seat when certain antecedent conditions are met. Second, notice that the abstention regime is meeting specific.

Third, notice that there is a window within which a reasonable explanation for an unexcused absence can be considered.

What does this all mean?

First, the Constitution frowns upon absence without the permission, in writing, of the Speaker.

Second, an MP who is absent without the permission of the Speaker has about 15 sittings to fix this problem.

Third, if the MP does not fix the problem with the Speaker then on the 15th sitting, he vacates his seat automatically unless he takes an affirmative step to provide a reasonable explanation to the Committee on Privileges.

Notice that the explanation must be reasonable and that has to be determined by the Committee, not the MP.

Fourth, if the MP does not fix the problem with the Speaker AFTER 15 sittings then the MP has vacated the seat.

An explanation at this point cannot be considered by the Committee. The explanation has come too late.

Fifth, the rule here applies in a particular meeting. It has given an absentee MP 15 sittings to provide a reasonable explanation during the 43 day sitting window.

If you miss 16 or more days during the 43-day sitting, your seat is automatically vacated.

Moreover, the absences do not carryover to another meeting. At the beginning of each meeting, an MP starts with a new and clean slate.

So if you are absent for 9 days in the first meeting and 8 days in the second meeting, it will not count as 17 absences.

The Speaker and the Committee of Privileges could still take a dim view of these absences, but the absences do not cumulate to trigger the vacation threshold of the Constitution.

Well, this makes too much sense and is even lenient. No employee should just disappear from work for 16+ of the 43 “working” days and expect his employer to keep paying him and for him to hold the job.

What happened when the Committee of Privileges found that an MPs explanation to be absent from Parliament for an indefinite period is reasonable?

I found that to violate the clear and crisp language of Article 97(1)(c) and the Court of Appeal agreed by affirming that “the maximum period the Speaker could allow a member of Parliament to absent himself from parliament is 15 days.”

What should happen when an MP has been absent for more than 15 sittings during a meeting?

The seat becomes vacant by operation of law and the clerk of parliament has a constitutional obligation to report the vacancy to the EC who is enjoined to hold a by-election in 30 days.

The Constitution takes representation seriously and insists that constituents should be represented at all times.

Article 97(1)(c) is an anti-absenteeism provision and it provides that a Member’s seat SHALL become vacant if that person fails to get permission from the Speaker for being absent for 15+ sittings during a meeting of parliament.

It is too easy to comply with — get permission to be absent; don’t just disappear!!

View her Timepath below: