Posterity will be kind to those MPs whose commitment was seen by many as a betrayal.

The 1992 Constitution says there shall be 19 cabinet ministers; and 2 of which were at the centre stage on Friday 24th February 2023 parliamentary voting.

This piece is not to downplay the authority of a political party directive, nor the whip system in our parliamentary practice. It has got everything to do with an independent critique of the issues ie the propriety of the Party directive, constitutional imperatives, the performance of MPs in their constituencies, current realities, and the way forward.

There would have been constitutional aberrations if Parliament had failed to approve the two cabinet ministers of Agriculture and Trade and industry. These two portfolios had been lying vacant and we are constitutionally bound to fill them. Voting to approve those nominees was therefore appropriate. Downsizing of government does not suggest constitutional lawlessness. The call for downsizing is still open and can be achieved through other means.

Again, we are inviting these lawmakers to breach the law simply because we want to downsize our government is a misnormal. The minority participated in the vetting and did not make any adverse findings against any of the nominees. The President could be engaged to do the cut in other areas and not the 2 cabinet ministers’ approval. What we must not lose sight of is that had parliament failed in approving them, the President could still go ahead to appoint care- taker ministers other than hitherto arrangements where serving ministers of other ministries were made to act. What parliament had done is constitutionally apt and doing otherwise would have amounted to an aberration and a slap on the face of the law and practice. It is also important to state that all the nominees were deemed qualified and merely disapproving them on the basis of the desire to downsize our government would have amounted to injustice and a conspiracy to undermine our very constitution and parliamentary practices and conventions even though there is a loud call by a section of the society for government to downsize.

The next vex issue is what many party pundits are harking onto “party directives and party interest” have been undermined by those MPs who voted to approve the nominees. The 1992 Constitution has supremacy over such Party directives and interests. Party pundits, unfortunately, impugn that those “bold” and “gallant nationalist” MPs who voted to approve the ministerial nominees have collected bribes. NDC always self-inflict with unpleasant emotional wounds and pains and end up hoodwinked, and cajoled the branches into believing that its leadership in Parliament and by extension its MPs who have been compromised. This ought to stop immediately. From where I sit, perhaps; those bold and nationalist MPs did multi -tasking and probably reflected on a number of questions; what does the national constitution say, is there any constitutional basis for our party directive to disapprove these ministerial nominees ? what is the propriety of the directive in respect of timing, political strategy, etc? What will be the political cost or consequences in voting “No”, knowing very well that the President could still get these nominees approved or work;  with or without our participation? What will be the posterity report card on us? What will be its implications on our work as MPs in the constituencies? Won’t disapproving them affect our lobbying for projects into our constituencies knowing very well primaries and election 2024 stare at us?

Politically, the directive from the national party appears inappropriate and/ or ill-timed and if they had carried it out would have affected the minority MPs in terms of lobbying for projects into their constituencies and become a scar on the conscience of future NDC government since those ministers could have taken revenge. This would have adverse effect on the performance of minority MPs and thus could lead to loss of seats at primaries and 2024 elections.  If the Minority really meant business they could have walked out; why didn’t they? Was it parliamentary theatrics? I believe those who voted ‘Yes’ to approve the nominees are unsung heroes and heroines and should be celebrated because they saved the party from future embarrassment and national ridicule. Many people are refusing to see the unpopularity of this directive. The fact that some civil society organisations bought into this idea does not make it legal. The President could still be prevailed upon to downsize his elephant “Obolo” government.

How would disapproving of those cabinet ministers affect the performance of minority MPs?

When constituents request their Members of Parliament to lobby for projects, knowing very well that those MPs are in opposition; who are the objects of their call? Is it not to go to these serving Ministers to lobby for constructions of roads and request for other projects from these ministers today we are seeking to reject? So if the entire 136 had rejected the ministers and the majority managed to approve them or the President still made them care taker ministers; would our MPs have moral courage to approach them for projects? This is the whole mystery about the approval debate and it should be enough for pride talks to give way to reality and reasonability.

We have 2 years to another election where voters will demand accountability more especially in the areas of key performance irrespective of whether an MP is in government or not. And NDC is telling its MPs don’t approve ministers who may assist you with projects for your constituents and constituencies?

In my world,  I believe such directive could be more popular where the Executive in flapants disregard to the law is refusing to heed call for downsizing.

Other realities are the issues of personal affinity with the nominees which must not be overlooked. Some MPs relate very well with some of the nominees and asking the minority to vote against them was inappropriate especially when the appointment committee had not made adverse findings against any of the nominees.  MPs have built relationships with some of these nominees and thus, do see the new ministers as opportunities for working together in bringing development to respective constituencies.

The way forward

What happened on Friday 24th March must not be stretched to the competence of leadership in Parliament nor Adabraka Executives. It must also not be linked to whether someone has taken money or not. Posterity will be kind to those bold and nationalist MPs who voted Yes from the NDC side.  In future such Party directives must be made within the confines of the 1992 Constitution and party interest must not be seen as contravening the 1992 Constitution.

The action of those MPs who defied the party’s directive to approve those nominees was therefore appropriate and must be defended. The action of the few Minority must be seen as bold, nationalists, patriotic and they ought to be applauded and defended and not to be condemned.

The writer of this article is a media and PR practitioner Fred Forson. You can reach out to him on 0502133763