Member of Parliament for Tamale Central, Inusah Fuseini, says President Akufo-Addo should not stampede the legislature into passing the Vigilantism and other related violence Bill.

The opposition parliamentarian says Parliament should be allowed to use its procedures to pass the bill.

Parliament has been recalled for an emergency sitting which was supposed to consider the bill but that has been put aside.

Read also: Vigilantism bill lands in Parliament

Attorney-General, Gloria Akuffo wants the vigilantism bill to be treated as urgent

Speaking recently at a meeting with anti-corruption groups at the Presidency, President Akufo-Addo said he is committed to getting the bill passed latest by June ending.  

“This [Vigilantism and other related violence Bill] is not something that is going to have to hang around for months and years. This is something that hopefully by the end of June or the latest, we will have a meaningful law on the table signed up,” he assured.

Read also: Parliament postpones stakeholder engagement on Vigilante Bill

However, the President’s comment appears to have angered Inusah Fuseini, who is also the Ranking Member on the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee.

Parliament is not an extension of the Executive, he fiercely stated on Top Story on Joy FM, Tuesday.

“The president has no business giving timelines to Parliament on how it should do its job. He should concentrate on his business as president and leave Parliament alone to do its job,” he told News Anchor, Emefa Apawu.

He explained, the initial process to get the Bill passed, was truncated when it was set aside and instead, they were asked work on the Companies Bill. That means that they would have to go back and start the process all over, he said.

“The executive having introduced the bill into Parliament, it is now the property of parliament…and that Parliamentary institutions and procedures will be used to pass the bill into law,” he added.

According to the legislator, the Bill in its current form, “lacks structural clarity in many respects” while it “infringes on certain provisions of the Constitution.”

“We need to look at all those things,” he stressed adding that there is need to engage stakeholders to ensure that the law is passed consistent with the 1992 Constitution.

If “the president says he should not be stampeded, Parliament should not also be stampeded” into doing his bidding, he argued.