I am happy to hear Blay referring to Tsatsu as a “lecturer”. All NPP judges and lawyers studied law but can’t interpret it let alone understand it and practice it ✍🏽
The NPP former Chairman, is struggling to explain a simple English. We must admit when we mess up. Our party has not set the pace for others to follow as we promise. I think should apologise to the Ghanaian people.
Ah, the NPP's own constitution stated it point blank. That any one who joins another party or goes independent leaving the shades of the NPP forfeit his seat. So why is the NPP making this whole thing look as if the NDC is at fault.
Because they don’t have the numbers in parliament. They understand clearly what the law says but it’s not in their favor. And they have a judiciary that can do their bidding
Blay sounds confused and incoherent. It's an aberration and a disservice to the audience to include clueless Blay on this panel. He belongs nowhere near Tsatsu as far as the law is concerned.
NPP is known for one thing; politics of convenience and not politics of principles. Very selfish group of people. This sort of life does not enhance democratic dispensation.
It is all about whether an MP's intention to stand as independent or for a different party in a FUTURE parliament invalidates their mandate to the current parliament. The constitution says NO. Unless they also wish to remain in the CURRENT parliament in their new intended colours. In which case they will be deemed to have crossed the carpet. SIMPLE.
so why did the constitution use the phrase if a member 'was' elected" instead of "shall be elected." how can was elected be said to refer to the future while the wording itself is in the past?
Mismatched It is unfortunate NPP is forced to defend these ungrateful and disloyal MPs because of Numbers in Parliament. Very painful decision by NPP And it has exposed politics of Convenience on their part.
A simple question that can resolve the present controversy in Parliament in respect of the four vacation of parliamentary seats. Question: *When should a Member of Parliament vacate his seat. Is it during his present term in office or during his probable future term in office, should he win the future election?* Article 97 clause 1, paragraphs g and h of the constitution of Ghana. 1) A member of Parliament shall vacate his seat in parliament - (g) if he leaves the party of which he was a member at the time of his election to Parliament to join another party or seeks to remain in Parliament as an independent member; or (h) if he was elected a member of Parliament as an independent candidate and joins a political party. If it is argued that the member of parliament must not vacate his present seat but rather vacate a future seat if he probably wins a future election, then it would imply that, immediately he is declared a member of parliament in future, he must immediately vacate his seat, so that another election is organised for him to probably win again. This view would amount to causing other parliamentary candidates (including the political party candidates to contest the same elections twice) and to what end? If this view is upheld, it would also imply that a member of parliament who becomes the Speaker of Parliament, must not vacate his present seat in parliament but rather vacate a probable future seat in parliament. It would also imply that upon dissolution of parliament, members should vacate their probable future parliamentary seats. *Second follow-up question* In the context of this discussion, at which point, can it be conclusive that a member of parliament has either left his political party or joined a political party (if he was initially independent) ? *Answer to question two* The time of leaving the political party or joining one (if he was independent) occurs before the end of the present term of parliament. The time of filing for candidacy with the Electoral Commission is therefore reasonably conclusive as the time that he has left his political party or joined a political party (if he was independent). *Think about this carefully; How can someone who is presently the parliamentary candidate of a political party say that he is not presently a member of that political party.* The very moment an independent Member of Parliament becomes the parliamentary candidate of a political party for an upcoming election, at that very moment, it is confirmed that he is a Member of that political party because only Members of a political party can represent a political party in an Election. Similarly, the very moment an MP of a political party becomes Independent, he is automatically in direct opposition to the official choice of candidate of the political party, and it can therefore not be said that he is still a Member of the political party. Such a person has by his present action, presently left the political party. *Final question* Should a political party be the only one to report that a person is no longer a member of the party? *Answer* In this context, any citizen can point out or report a wrongdoing *Summary* Article 97 is clear that the parliamentary seat to be vacated is the present seat and not a future probable seat. The time of filing for candidacy with the Electoral Commission contrary to his "present status in parliament" is therefore the reasonable conclusive evidence that a member of parliament has either left his party, or joined a party (if he was independent); *and must therefore vacate his seat with immediate effect*,
I maintain this, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the 1992 constitution. Now let me tell you something about the control and people who plans to hold that power of or to control. Lets juxtapose Ghanas so called 'constitutional crises and the power of or to control in medieval Europe and the church as well as the issues that flowed from there. In those days the church was the sole interpreter of the bible even to an extent where even the language used there is restricted to use by a few wealthy people proped up by the church. There came to be a quid pro quo between the church and the wealthy elite and these two covered up each other to exploit the masses with the word ie. the bible until the protestant movements kicked off. Now observe anybody here in Ghana who says that there is a problem with the constitution of Ghana, you will come to observe that these people exhibit some bourgeoisie/despotic tendency in thinking, in attitude, in doing things. Observe these people carefully you will notice all of these traites. Now it has been said that the constitution was written by the ordinary people of Ghana in plane language. This makes it easy and possible for anyone with primary or JHS knowledge or education who can read and understand to interpret and apply accordingly. With this no one can lord it over anybody. Like was in those days when the church monopolised the reading and preaching of the word and had a few feudal lords backing them up with muscles and exploiting the few. Now put these two scenarios side by side. Present day Ghana and medieval Europe. These NPP people wished they had the chance to have supervised the writing and promulgation of the 1992 constitution. Believe you me they would be contolling us all by now. What is happening in the courts is something that should not have happened at all. Because the constitution is soo plane that even a primary school pupil can read and decipher the imports of the constitution. These NPP people are the bane of this nation and I urge someone from the population or any group of people to petition for the striking out of the ruling of Torkornoo and and his her people. Ghana needs some sanity in the judiciary. The nonsense with these NPP people must stop
Folks, NPP have not got good lawyers. What they do is to judge search then take particular cases to these judges. Beleive me, if the SC was not packed with NPP loyalists, these cases wouldn't have found favours in the courts. Look at the trend. Even when Anin Yeboah was at the Appeals Courts, he found his way unto all NPP political cases meanwhile there were many many Appeal Court Judges. This is what the NPP is good at. There are brutal at manipulating the processes of justice and compromising the institutions. There are serious lawyers in the NDC. Most of these lawyers specialise in the difficult areas of law like Taxation and International Maritime Law. These take you out of your comfort zone. The issue is that these NDC lawyers like Atta Mills and Kwasi Botchway are not rubble rousers. They try to keep away from the limelight. The lawyer who represented Tsatsu is another. He is a don in the law but speaks very little. Akilakpa Sawyer is another who does not speak but have enormous legal knowledge.
The panells on this program is not balanced at all. Why would you bring the LAW himself in the name of Mr Tsikata to debate with a first year law student like Freddie Blay??? See how Mr Tsikata is making Mr Blay talk nonsense.
The Speaker has no authority to declare that parliamentary seats have become vacant on the basis of an MP has “filed nomination” to contest a future election. The Speaker must rescind his wrongful decision, and go to the constitutional decreed source to get the legal and moral grounds to decide on the situation.
Tsatstu might know the law but his party affiliation makes him deviates from the law. All Ndc are saying the supreme court if wrong, all NPP says the supreme Court is right. So the law is being politicised
Every body going to court interprets the law to his advantage and thats why they all think they are right. Tsikata would definitely take a different view if it is the ndc suffering the majority position as npp is facing today. Why did he changed the strategy in fighting for ndc election result case. When does one cross carpet. Is it at parliament or at ecs office. The framers of constitution will not mean a member wanting to change party for next parliament therefore had to always miss the very next term of 4 yrs.
Why pairing apple gadget to Samsung product? I don't understand a single comment from this cheeky bombom Mr Blay said. He speaks from his cheek, not from the mouth. 😂😂😂
Wow, Mr. Tsikata has really explained it to my understanding
The Law is in the building. Legend for a reason.
Good to see two matured people having a discussion instead of exuberant youngsters shouting across the table. We need more of this.
Tsatsu makes total reasoning simple... Great mind
I am happy to hear Blay referring to Tsatsu as a “lecturer”. All NPP judges and lawyers studied law but can’t interpret it let alone understand it and practice it ✍🏽
😂, bro, they know and understand but because they want to steal with it that's why they do that....
Tsatsu taught Mr. Blay at Legon
It's so refreshing to hear Mr. Tsikata speak. Sound argument and analysis. Just beautiful!
The CJ needs to return to Makola.
The connection school? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@iddrisukasim6074 SHE SHOULD GO AGBLOBLOSHIE TO LEARN THE 1992 CONSTITUTION,SHE IS SUCH A SHAMEFUL JUDGE EVER IN THE HISTORY OF GHANA 🇬🇭
The NPP former Chairman, is struggling to explain a simple English. We must admit when we mess up. Our party has not set the pace for others to follow as we promise. I think should apologise to the Ghanaian people.
That's what dishonesty does to a person.
Ah, the NPP's own constitution stated it point blank. That any one who joins another party or goes independent leaving the shades of the NPP forfeit his seat. So why is the NPP making this whole thing look as if the NDC is at fault.
Because they don’t have the numbers in parliament. They understand clearly what the law says but it’s not in their favor. And they have a judiciary that can do their bidding
Because they don’t want to be minority
Blay sounds confused and incoherent. It's an aberration and a disservice to the audience to include clueless Blay on this panel. He belongs nowhere near Tsatsu as far as the law is concerned.
That’s what becomes of a man who decides not to be truthful
Please fear God Tv3, don’t bring Mr. Tsikata and Blay, because the matching is not at all. Blay is struggling a lot .
NPP is known for one thing; politics of convenience and not politics of principles. Very selfish group of people. This sort of life does not enhance democratic dispensation.
See this Freddie Blay man ooo, Hhahaha, NPP man will remain NPP man.
He is now running away from their own party laws. This law is not an axe.
Mr Blay don’t no what’s he is saying npp where are the men
HOW CAN THIS STUDENT BLAY KNOW MORE THAN HIS LECTURE
😂😂 no be juju be that
Exactly my question... Our people are just amazing smh
No be juju be that 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Do you guys reason logically ?
@@patrickasante6991 IN WHAT SENSE,ARE YOU LISTENING TO THE CRAP OF SUCH SHAMEFUL EXPLANATION ❓WHICH LOGIC ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ❓
Tsatsu, the Law!❤
It is all about whether an MP's intention to stand as independent or for a different party in a FUTURE parliament invalidates their mandate to the current parliament. The constitution says NO. Unless they also wish to remain in the CURRENT parliament in their new intended colours. In which case they will be deemed to have crossed the carpet. SIMPLE.
so why did the constitution use the phrase if a member 'was' elected" instead of "shall be elected." how can was elected be said to refer to the future while the wording itself is in the past?
Simple bro. Don't mind them. Most Ghanaians just follow some people blindly instead of using their minds
Mfantsipim Lawyer vs. Adisadel Lawyer. 😂😂😂
Mismatched
It is unfortunate NPP is forced to defend these ungrateful and disloyal MPs because of Numbers in Parliament.
Very painful decision by NPP
And it has exposed politics of Convenience on their part.
These are the double standards people who think they are wise than anyone. See the way Freddie is struggling before almighty Tsatsu
What's that Mr Blay saying at all. Invite only reasonable guest to your show same as Lawyer Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, not that thing called Blay.
Keasiaba blay
A simple question that can resolve the present controversy in Parliament in respect of the four vacation of parliamentary seats.
Question:
*When should a Member of Parliament vacate his seat. Is it during his present term in office or during his probable future term in office, should he win the future election?*
Article 97 clause 1, paragraphs g and h of the constitution of Ghana.
1) A member of Parliament shall vacate his seat in parliament -
(g) if he leaves the party of which he was a member at the time of his election to Parliament to join another party or seeks to remain in Parliament as an independent member; or
(h) if he was elected a member of Parliament as an independent candidate and joins a political party.
If it is argued that the member of parliament must not vacate his present seat but rather vacate a future seat if he probably wins a future election, then it would imply that, immediately he is declared a member of parliament in future, he must immediately vacate his seat, so that another election is organised for him to probably win again.
This view would amount to causing other parliamentary candidates (including the political party candidates to contest the same elections twice) and to what end?
If this view is upheld, it would also imply that a member of parliament who becomes the Speaker of Parliament, must not vacate his present seat in parliament but rather vacate a probable future seat in parliament.
It would also imply that upon dissolution of parliament, members should vacate their probable future parliamentary seats.
*Second follow-up question*
In the context of this discussion, at which point, can it be conclusive that a member of parliament has either left his political party or joined a political party (if he was initially independent) ?
*Answer to question two*
The time of leaving the political party or joining one (if he was independent) occurs before the end of the present term of parliament.
The time of filing for candidacy with the Electoral Commission is therefore reasonably conclusive as the time that he has left his political party or joined a political party (if he was independent).
*Think about this carefully; How can someone who is presently the parliamentary candidate of a political party say that he is not presently a member of that political party.*
The very moment an independent Member of Parliament becomes the parliamentary candidate of a political party for an upcoming election, at that very moment, it is confirmed that he is a Member of that political party because only Members of a political party can represent a political party in an Election.
Similarly, the very moment an MP of a political party becomes Independent, he is automatically in direct opposition to the official choice of candidate of the political party, and it can therefore not be said that he is still a Member of the political party. Such a person has by his present action, presently left the political party.
*Final question*
Should a political party be the only one to report that a person is no longer a member of the party?
*Answer*
In this context, any citizen can point out or report a wrongdoing
*Summary*
Article 97 is clear that the parliamentary seat to be vacated is the present seat and not a future probable seat.
The time of filing for candidacy with the Electoral Commission contrary to his "present status in parliament" is therefore the reasonable conclusive evidence that a member of parliament has either left his party, or joined a party (if he was independent); *and must therefore vacate his seat with immediate effect*,
I maintain this, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the 1992 constitution. Now let me tell you something about the control and people who plans to hold that power of or to control. Lets juxtapose Ghanas so called 'constitutional crises and the power of or to control in medieval Europe and the church as well as the issues that flowed from there. In those days the church was the sole interpreter of the bible even to an extent where even the language used there is restricted to use by a few wealthy people proped up by the church. There came to be a quid pro quo between the church and the wealthy elite and these two covered up each other to exploit the masses with the word ie. the bible until the protestant movements kicked off. Now observe anybody here in Ghana who says that there is a problem with the constitution of Ghana, you will come to observe that these people exhibit some bourgeoisie/despotic tendency in thinking, in attitude, in doing things. Observe these people carefully you will notice all of these traites. Now it has been said that the constitution was written by the ordinary people of Ghana in plane language. This makes it easy and possible for anyone with primary or JHS knowledge or education who can read and understand to interpret and apply accordingly. With this no one can lord it over anybody. Like was in those days when the church monopolised the reading and preaching of the word and had a few feudal lords backing them up with muscles and exploiting the few. Now put these two scenarios side by side. Present day Ghana and medieval Europe. These NPP people wished they had the chance to have supervised the writing and promulgation of the 1992 constitution. Believe you me they would be contolling us all by now. What is happening in the courts is something that should not have happened at all. Because the constitution is soo plane that even a primary school pupil can read and decipher the imports of the constitution. These NPP people are the bane of this nation and I urge someone from the population or any group of people to petition for the striking out of the ruling of Torkornoo and and his her people. Ghana needs some sanity in the judiciary.
The nonsense with these NPP people must stop
Struggling and confused Blay
Why pair this confused man with a person like Tsatsu on legal issues ?. The man can't even understand what he himself is saying.
I’m even shocked my brother
Ur the confuse person 😢
@@francisblay5650It's obvious u don't understand anything being there yourself
Ask again ooo my brother! It’s like pairing eagles with chickens? 😅😅😅
Folks, NPP have not got good lawyers. What they do is to judge search then take particular cases to these judges. Beleive me, if the SC was not packed with NPP loyalists, these cases wouldn't have found favours in the courts. Look at the trend.
Even when Anin Yeboah was at the Appeals Courts, he found his way unto all NPP political cases meanwhile there were many many Appeal Court Judges.
This is what the NPP is good at. There are brutal at manipulating the processes of justice and compromising the institutions.
There are serious lawyers in the NDC. Most of these lawyers specialise in the difficult areas of law like Taxation and International Maritime Law. These take you out of your comfort zone. The issue is that these NDC lawyers like Atta Mills and Kwasi Botchway are not rubble rousers. They try to keep away from the limelight. The lawyer who represented Tsatsu is another. He is a don in the law but speaks very little. Akilakpa Sawyer is another who does not speak but have enormous legal knowledge.
The panells on this program is not balanced at all. Why would you bring the LAW himself in the name of Mr Tsikata to debate with a first year law student like Freddie Blay??? See how Mr Tsikata is making Mr Blay talk nonsense.
hmm! mr Blay hmmm
The Speaker has no authority to declare that parliamentary seats have become vacant on the basis of an MP has “filed nomination” to contest a future election. The Speaker must rescind his wrongful decision, and go to the constitutional decreed source to get the legal and moral grounds to decide on the situation.
I've found one bot😂😂😂😂
@@sylviaa.8257😂😂😂
Tsatstu might know the law but his party affiliation makes him deviates from the law. All Ndc are saying the supreme court if wrong, all NPP says the supreme Court is right. So the law is being politicised
Is it me or Tsatsu Tsikata always lose against the NPP in court?
Despite his knowledge of the court, he still loses embarrassingly.
The answer is in the question
I can't stop laughing... in fact a very savage answer worth meditating. lol MAYBE THE COMMENT WAS MEANT FOR ANOTHER VIDEO. LMAO
Speaker fell into what 🕳
Tony Blay - you're an embarrassment. Your understanding and interpretation of the law is rather suspect.
Verbose please
Every body going to court interprets the law to his advantage and thats why they all think they are right. Tsikata would definitely take a different view if it is the ndc suffering the majority position as npp is facing today. Why did he changed the strategy in fighting for ndc election result case. When does one cross carpet. Is it at parliament or at ecs office. The framers of constitution will not mean a member wanting to change party for next parliament therefore had to always miss the very next term of 4 yrs.
Very sad, almost all NDC supporters are not able to make a single comment without using insults.
See another hypocrite 😂😂
@@sylviaa.8257 Ashoq
Why pairing apple gadget to Samsung product? I don't understand a single comment from this cheeky bombom Mr Blay said. He speaks from his cheek, not from the mouth. 😂😂😂