Zebila MP Cletus Avoka has disagreed with former Speaker of Parliament, Prof. Mike Ocquaye, regarding his interpretation of Haruna Iddrisu’s petition to Parliament.

On Joy News’ PM Express, he expressed his surprise at Prof. Ocquaye’s view that the Tamale South MP had to be a direct beneficiary of the outcome of the petition before raising the matter.

Cletus Avoka, a legal mind and seasoned lawmaker, dismissed Prof. Ocquaye’s argument, stating that the issue at hand is purely constitutional and does not require the petitioner to be a beneficiary.

“This is a constitutional matter; Article 97 G and H are clear that if any Ghanaian feels that someone has taken an action that infringes upon the Constitution, they have the right to bring it to the Supreme Court,” Mr Avoka explained.

He further elaborated that constitutional issues, especially those involving the violation of the Constitution, do not require direct personal interest or benefit to initiate action.

“Do I need to be a beneficiary directly to challenge a constitutional breach? No, with the greatest of respect to him,” Mr Avoka said, making it clear that anyone can challenge actions that contravene the Constitution, not just those who stand to benefit.

Cletus Avoka argued that Prof. Ocquaye’s interpretation would be overreaching and would limit the constitutional rights of individuals to safeguard the Constitution.

“The Constitution does not say that if you are a beneficiary, or because four MPs have crossed to other parties, you must have a direct benefit or disadvantage before raising the issue in Parliament,” he remarked.

Expressing disappointment at Ocquaye’s position, Mr Avoka said, “It is unfortunate that a person of his calibre can make such a statement.”

He insisted that the constitutionality of the MPs’ actions should be addressed without focusing on who benefits directly, underscoring the importance of protecting the principles enshrined in the Constitution.