Member of Parliament (MP) for South Dayi, Rockson-Nelson Defeamekpor, has advised Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin to seek clarification from the Supreme Court over the Speaker of Parliament’s decision to decline a recall of the House.

According to Mr Defeamekpor, Speaker Alban Bagbin exercised his discretion in rejecting the Majority's request to reconvene Parliament.

Speaking on Joy FM's Top Story on Wednesday, he questioned whether the Speaker’s response to the recall request constituted an interpretation of Article 296 of the Constitution.

• Read also: Your request to recall Parliament is declined – Bagbin to Afenyo-Markin

He explained that if that is the case, it involves exercising a function of office pursuant to a constitutional provision.

Mr Defeamekpor argued that if the Majority Leader believes the Speaker’s decision was improper, the appropriate step is to seek constitutional interpretation from the Supreme Court.

“I want to urge the leader of the government business to go back to the Supreme Court to determine whether or not, in exercising his [Speaker] discretion in this matter to decline the request was proper,” he said.

• Read also: ‘NDC Majority Caucus’ urges Speaker to reject NPP MPs’ recall request

His comments come after Alban Bagbin declined a request by the Majority to reconvene Parliament to address urgent government business. 

The Speaker stated that the House would resume after the December 7 general elections to address pressing issues and ensure a smooth transition to the 9th Parliament of the Fourth Republic.

“The House will resume sitting after the elections to complete all essential matters before a seamless transition to the 9th Parliament of the Fourth Republic of Ghana,” Bagbin stated while stressing the need for decorum and national interest in parliamentary proceedings.

• Read also: Majority requests recall of Parliament

Commenting further, Mr Defeamekpor noted that constitutional matters should not result in frequent court challenges, noting that such matters can lead to consequences.

He explained that constitutional officeholders are often required to perform duties in accordance with specific provisions, and not every decision warrants judicial intervention.

“So you cannot be running to Court anytime such a function is performed,” he added.