Annoh-Dompreh Challenges Move To Adjourn Parliament, Questions Delay In BoG Bill Business

By Daniel Bampoe

Minority Chief Whip and Member of Parliament for Nsawam-Adoagyiri, Frank Annoh-Dompreh, has challenged the move to abruptly adjourn parliamentary proceedings, arguing that the House had been recalled to deal with specific urgent businesses and should therefore make full use of the time available to conduct those businesses.

Speaking on the floor of Parliament during proceedings, Mr Annoh-Dompreh said the justification that the House should rise early because a vetting exercise was scheduled for the following day did not provide sufficient grounds for bringing parliamentary business to an early end.

According to the Nsawam-Adoagyiri MP, vetting is a standard parliamentary procedure that is undertaken by the appropriate committee rather than the entire House.

He therefore questioned the relevance of the planned vetting exercise to the decision to adjourn the sitting ahead of schedule.

Mr Annoh-Dompreh’s intervention came after a motion was moved for the adjournment of the House.

While acknowledging the role of the Speaker in determining the scope of the parliamentary recall, he reminded members that the Speaker had directed that the recall should be limited to key and urgent businesses for which Parliament had been reconvened.

He pointed specifically to the Banks and Specialised Deposit-Taking Institutions Amendment Bill, which, according to him, formed part of the agreed essential business for the recall and had already been advertised on the Order Paper.

The Minority Chief Whip questioned why the House was not proceeding with the bill despite its inclusion in the advertised business.

He directed his concerns particularly at the leadership of the House, asking why members were being asked to adjourn instead of dealing with the business that had been identified for consideration.

Mr Annoh-Dompreh said the explanation that Parliament had worked for less than two minutes did not adequately address the issue, particularly in the context of the government’s 24-hour economy agenda, which he invoked during the exchange on the floor.

He also drew attention to the amount of time that had already been spent correcting the Votes and Proceedings, as well as the presence of two official reports that also formed part of the parliamentary work before the House.

The Nsawam-Adoagyiri MP maintained that the House had business to transact and that members should be allowed to deal with the matters for which Parliament had been recalled rather than simply ending proceedings.

The exchange also briefly took a lighter turn when the Speaker appeared to suggest that Mr Annoh-Dompreh was taking issue with a colleague.

The Minority Chief Whip immediately clarified that he was not attacking the colleague involved, stressing that she was his friend and that they worked together in parliamentary leadership.

“I will not take, and we are in leadership together,” he said, while emphasising that his intervention was intended to place the matter on record rather than engage in a personal disagreement.

He subsequently returned to the substantive issue of the recall, reiterating that the Speaker had outlined specific key businesses that Parliament was expected to consider.

Mr Annoh-Dompreh singled out the banking-sector legislation, insisting that the Bank of Ghana-related bill was part of the essential business that had been identified for consideration and was reflected in the parliamentary documents before the House.

He consequently urged the Deputy Majority leadership to explain to Parliament why the business was not being taken up instead of simply proposing an adjournment.

In response to the motion, Mr Annoh-Dompreh eventually indicated that he would second it, although he did so reluctantly. He expressed concern that members of the House were still arriving and appeared ready to participate in parliamentary business at the time the adjournment motion was being pursued.

“I willingly, unwillingly, I second the motion,” he said, making clear that his decision to second the motion did not mean he agreed with the reasoning behind the proposed early adjournment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *