May I, respectfully, Mr. Speaker, seek your indulgence to submit to your esteemed office a matter that has captivated our society: that of parliamentary incivility.

Mr. Speaker, in recent times, no branch of government in our Republic has been as subdued and interfered with as our legislative arm. Indeed, a major challenge facing the 9th Parliament is the need for a modicum of deference and a return to parliamentary civility.

Before proceeding, Mr. Speaker, allow me to acknowledge that one cannot overlook the profound calmness and composure you displayed in the House when Parliament was on tenterhooks during the case of Alexander Afenyo Markin v. the Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney General.

Your conduct during this period was a masterclass by all standards — statesmanlike, tranquilising, and reassuring to our national psyche.

Mr. Speaker, however, in recent times, the 9th Parliament has seen such statesmanlike conduct lacking on the floor of the House.

An ongoing example of this graceless conduct is evident in the current ministerial vetting process. Some questions posed to nominees are unnecessarily excessive, the tension in the vetting process seems unexpectedly disorderly, and the cross-examinations of nominees appear endless.

Many have asked, for example, what is the logical relevance of asking a nominee to perform an Ewe dance during a vetting process for the position of Deputy Attorney General on national television?

On or around January 30, 2025, another example of unparliamentary conduct erupted, when the Clerk of Parliament testified before an investigating committee that, during a ministerial vetting, one of Parliament’s glass doors was broken, verbal abuse occurred, furniture was destroyed, members of the vetting committee shoved one another, and microphones were damaged.

This parliamentary incivility, Mr. Speaker, was also recently extended to the floor of Parliament when, during the State of the Nation’s Address, some Members of Parliament were visibly seen on our national television screens engaged in rebel-yelling, finger-gesturing, table-banging, and protest-singing in the presence of the heads of the three arms of government: His Excellency the President, Her Ladyship the Chief Justice, your good self, the Right Honourable Speaker, invited members of the diplomatic corps, our revered chiefs, and other dignitaries.

Mr. Speaker, it may be instructive to submit to your high office that, while Members of Parliament have a duty to their constituencies to raise every issue fearlessly, advance every argument, and ask every question, however distasteful, which they believe will benefit their constituencies, they also owe a corresponding duty to Parliament.

This duty is to conduct themselves honourably, in a manner that reflects candour, courtesy, and respect, thereby promoting and maintaining the dignity and civility of Parliament.

To ask a member to perform an Ewe Akpi dance, for instance, during a parliamentary vetting is not only comical, but it also fails to promote dignity, decorum, or courtesy in Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, it does not, at all. Neither does rebel-yelling in Parliament, in the presence of invited foreign dignitaries, contribute positively to fostering foreign investment. Quite the opposite.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, if your esteemed office will permit me to digress for a moment, any student of international diplomacy will attest that sound decision-making and conflict resolution at the United Nations General Assembly are not achieved through brow-beating and rebel-yelling.

These decisions are made quietly behind the scenes, during coffee breaks, through compromises, and via the art of give-and-take. I humbly submit that we must aspire to this level of diplomatic discourse in our parliamentary proceedings, Right Honourable Speaker.

But perhaps the more pertinent question is not solely about lamenting the current happenings in Parliament. The appropriate question to ask is whether the Constitutional Review Commission might explore ways to address the 'subject to the provisions of this constitution' clause found in both Article 93(2) and Article 110(1) of the 1992 Constitution. These clauses vest legislative authority solely in Parliament and grant Parliament the right to regulate its own procedures through standing orders.

Many believe, Mr. Speaker, that the 'subject to the provisions of this constitution' clause weakens the Speaker’s ability to assert Parliament’s sovereignty and effectiveness in regulating its procedures. However, while the courts must examine legislative actions to ensure compliance with constitutionalism and limitations, there are certain constitutional provisions that must be entrusted exclusively to the Legislature for self-monitoring to maintain order in our August House.

Perhaps the proponents of the Separation of Powers doctrine may see the wisdom in granting Parliament exclusive powers, particularly regarding political matters, to balance what some perceive as ‘judicial autocracy’.

May I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by emphasising that maintaining dignity, decorum, and civility in Parliament is not an empty formality. It is essential to gain international confidence and encourage foreign investment in our growing democracy.

It is, therefore, our fervent hope that Parliament will reflect our image as the Black Star of Africa — embodying our Ghanaianess — and ensure that diplomacy in the face of national adversity, and tactfulness in the face of political deadlock, are prioritised.

Yours sincerely,

Seth Kwame Awuku

The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.