Drama as Barker- Vormawor’s counsel challenges parliamentary committee, cites specific legal basis for hearing:
Drama ensued in Ghana’s parliament when Lawyer Nana Ato Dadzie, representing Oliver Barker-Vormawor, challenged the parliamentary vetting committee, asserting that their hearing is specifically confined to Article 103(6) of the 1992 Constitution and Order 14 of the House.
This declaration was made during a hearing, and was prompted by concerns that the committee was acting outside their scope by threatening contempt proceedings.
Nana Ato Dadzie, in a strategic move, emphasized that the proceedings were not under Article 124, which deals with contempt of Parliament. This specific distinction was introduced to limit the committee’s power. He said that they were “invited here specifically to act under article 103(6) of the 1992 constitution and order 14.”
Speaking on behalf of his client, Nana Ato Dadzie expressed worry that the committee, or for that matter the minority, might be using the hearing as a preliminary step towards mounting contempt proceedings or taking other serious actions.
He explained that they had been summoned under Article 103(6), but that they were not invited under Article 124, which handles issues regarding contempt of Parliament.
The former chief of staff and experienced lawyer, Ato Dadzie’s remarks prompted a response from Alexander Afenyo-Markin who acknowledged the lawyer’s “50 years at the bar, adding “but your newer generation can always assist you.” This response subtly indicated Afenyo’s disagreement with the lawyer’s argument.
By stressing the limitations of the committee’s powers, Nana Ato Dadzie was clearly seeking to safeguard Oliver Barker-Vormawor from any future punitive actions.
