Akim Abuakwa South MP Samuel Atta Akyea has pushed back against the notion that lawmakers should be compelled to resign from Parliament simply because they express intentions to pursue different political paths in the future.
During a discussion on Joy News’ PM Express on Tuesday, October 16, he highlighted the importance of allowing MPs the freedom to consider future political ambitions without facing immediate consequences.
He emphasised that parliamentarians should not be treated as “robots” who are locked into their current roles without the flexibility to explore other options.
His remarks were in response to ongoing conversations in Parliament about MPs who have expressed plans to run as independent candidates in the 2024 parliamentary elections.
As a lawyer, Atta Akyea argued that such declarations do not amount to changing political allegiance and therefore, should not affect the MPs’ current standing.
He advocated for a more lenient approach, allowing MPs to voice their political ambitions without being penalised or forced to vacate their seats.
“The issue here is that these MPs are addressing their future intentions. They’ve not said that as of now they want to abandon where they are for any other direction,” Atta Akyea explained, referencing the Second Deputy Speaker’s announcement of future plans.
“Should it affect my current status if I declare my intentions for the future? I’ve not said now I’m crossing to another party.”
For Atta Akyea, it is important to make a clear distinction between present commitments and future aspirations.
“What we are saying now is that they are not crossing the carpet yet.
They are not saying that in this Parliament, they were sponsored by the NPP or came in as independents and now want to go to another party or stand as independents.”
He firmly rejected the idea that expressing future political ambitions should result in immediate repercussions, such as forcing MPs to relinquish their seats.
He compared this stance to treating MPs as if they were incapable of independent thought, arguing that such rigid consequences undermine their autonomy and ability to navigate evolving political landscapes.
“If not, then we are reducing the members of Parliament to robots. They can’t think, they can’t change their minds,” he warned.
Atta Akyea also pointed out that intentions can change, and it is unreasonable to pre-emptively judge MPs based on a future possibility. “What if what they want to do, they change their minds about?
Is Parliament going to declare on the thinking and feelings of MPs? That’s the problem I have,” he said, emphasising the need for flexibility in politics and decision-making.
This viewpoint underscores a broader issue surrounding parliamentary independence and the right to free expression.
Atta Akyea’s stance calls for a more flexible interpretation of parliamentary rules, arguing that lawmakers should have the liberty to express their future aspirations or consider alternative political directions without being subjected to harsh repercussions.
His argument promotes the idea that MPs should not be confined by rigid expectations but rather allowed the space to evolve their political thinking without immediate sanctions.