GhanaWeb Feature by Ishmael Batoma:
The reported attempt to arrest the Member of Parliament (MP) for Assin North, Rev John Ntim Fordjour, who is the Ranking Member on the Defence and Interior Committee of Parliament, has divided public opinion.
A section of the public believes the attempt to arrest the legislator was an abuse of power by the John Dramani Mahama government, as it violates the immunity that legislators are supposed to enjoy.
The Minority Caucus of Parliament has also argued that Ntim Fordjour made the allegations about two planes that arrived at Kotoka International Airport being used to smuggle cocaine and launder money while speaking on behalf of the caucus, as its leader on security matters and as a member of the Defence and Interior Committee.
Therefore, they argue, he cannot be arrested or invited for questioning over comments made in that capacity.
Others argue that the MP made serious allegations of criminal activity and must therefore provide evidence to the security authorities for investigation.
They contend that parliamentary immunity does not apply in this case because Rev Ntim Fordjour was not performing any parliamentary duty at the time of the attempted arrest, which took place on Wednesday, April 9, 2025.
So, who is right? What do the laws of the country say about parliamentary immunity?
Both the 1992 Constitution of Ghana and the Standing Orders of Parliament address the issue of parliamentary immunity.
Here is what the 1992 Constitution says:
Article 116:
Article 116 of the Constitution, which is titled “Immunity from Proceedings for Acts in Parliament”, comprehensively explains the issue of immunity of legislators.
The first clause of the article basically states that MPs cannot be subject to criminal proceedings if they are deemed to have made defamatory statements in the performance of their duties.
It states that, “Subject to the provisions of this article, but without prejudice to the general effect of article 115 of this Constitution, civil or criminal proceedings shall not be instituted against a Member of Parliament in any court or place out of Parliament for any matter or thing brought by him in or before Parliament by petition, bill, motion or otherwise.”
Article 116 (2) says that MPs who are accused of having done wrong in the line of duty are to be investigated by a committee of the House and, if found culpable, made to render an apology.
“Whenever in the opinion of the person presiding in Parliament a statement made by a member is prima facie defamatory of any person, the person presiding shall refer the matter for inquiry to the Parliamentary Committee on Privileges which shall report its findings to Parliament not later than thirty days after the matter was referred to it.”
Clause 3 of the article adds that, “Where the committee referred to in clause (2) of this article reports to Parliament that the statement made by the member is defamatory of any person, the member who made the statement shall, within seven days after that report, render an apology at the bar of Parliament, the terms of which shall be approved by the Parliamentary Committee on Privileges and communicated to the person who has been defamed.”
Additionally, Article 116 (4) states that in the case that the MP found culpable refuses to apologise, he or she shall be suspended by the Speaker of Parliament, as well as lose his or her “parliamentary privileges, immunities and remuneration, but they shall be restored to him if, at any time before the end of the session, he renders the apology as required by clause (3) of this article.”
Clause 5 of the article mandates MPs to publish their apology “with the same prominence as he published the first report.” Failure to do this, according to clause (6), will lead to them not being “protected by privilege.”
The question now is whether Ntim Fordjour was performing his parliamentary duties when he made the allegation on April 1, 2025, while Parliament had been in recess for weeks, for the provisions of Article 116 to come into play, i.e. for a committee of Parliament to investigate his claim as suggested by the Minority Caucus.
Article 117:
The Constitution also, in Article 117, states that MPs cannot be arrested while performing their parliamentary duties.
“Civil or criminal process coming from any court or place out of Parliament shall not be served on, or executed in relation to, the Speaker or a member or the Clerk to Parliament while he is on his way to, attending at or returning from, any proceedings of Parliament,” the article states.
Rev Ntim Fordjour was at his home when he was going to be arrested. There had been no parliamentary proceedings for him to be attending or returning from.
Article 118:
Article 118 also protects MPs from being compelled to answer questions on a matter while performing their parliamentary duties:
“(1) Neither the Speaker, nor a member of, nor the Clerk to, Parliament shall be compelled, while attending Parliament, to appear as a witness in any court or place out of Parliament.
“(2) The certificate of the Speaker that a member or the Clerk is attending the proceedings of Parliament is conclusive evidence of attendance at Parliament,” it reads.
Again, in this instance, the Assin North legislator was at his home.
Standing Orders of Parliament:
The Standing Orders of Parliament also echo the points made in the 1992 Constitution on the immunity of Members of Parliament.
Additionally, the orders list actions by MPs that are deemed contempt of Parliament or a breach of privilege.
They include:
-Deliberate misleading of Parliament.
– Misconduct or corruption in the execution of official duties by Members or officers of Parliament.
– Publication of false, perverted, misleading, distorted, fabricated or scandalous reports, books or libels reflecting on the proceedings in Parliament.
– Causing or effecting the arrest of a Member or officer of Parliament during the proceedings of Parliament or in the course of his duties.
– Molestation of Members or officers in connection with the performance of their duties in or out of Parliament.
– Attempted intimidation by threats of Members in the conduct of their duties.
From Ntim Fordjour’s actions and the attempt by NIB to arrest him, who is guilty of contempt of Parliament or a breach of privilege?
Power of Speaker to ‘release’ MPs to National Security:
The Standing Orders of Parliament also give the Speaker of Parliament the power to endorse arrest warrants for MPs who fail to produce documents requested by National Security.
Order 105 states that: “(1) If a person fails to appear before the House or a Committee as ordered or when a person fails to produce a document as ordered, except in so far as the production of the document is certified by either Mr Speaker or the National Security Council as being injurious to public interest, or prejudicial to the security of the State, Mr Speaker shall have power to issue a warrant to arrest the person and bring him before the House or the Committee. Such warrant shall be executed by a police officer.
“(2) Mr Speaker may endorse the warrant with a direction that the person to be arrested should be released after arrest if he enters into such a recognisance before a judge or Chairman of Regional Circuit or Community Tribunal or such judicial officer, however designated, as may be stated in the endorsement.”
The Speaker used this power to release two MPs to the National Security even when Parliament was in session and the said MPs had the duty of attending proceedings. In the current circumstance, Parliament is on recess.
Ever heard of a colonial fort with a children’s dungeon and a unique shrine for the slaves? Find out the details with Etsey Atisu as he toured Fort William at Anomabo below: