This is a very limited time that must be used wisely and productively. Government does a disservice to a constituency, to wit, the people of Nkronza North by leaving Amoateng's seat for so long unoccupied. As of now the the government is making it look as if it is only Amoateng among all the natives of Nkronza North who is fit for parliament. Now we can assume that all about Nkronza has come to a halt or naught when the people are not represented.

Who is speaking for and on behalf of the innocent people of Nkronza? In a democracy if you don't have representation in parliament a constituency hardly gets any recognition when it comes to the distribution of national wealth; everything passes you by. So for how long can the people of Nkronza North be passed by? In as much as we all pray for the vindication and release of Mr. Amoateng we cannot but give the seat to another native of Nkronza to continue from where Amoateng has reached.

Amoateng's contributions to Nkronza must not hinder her progress.

As a citizen and a native of Nkronza, Amoateng is known to have served his people well; having brought massive improvements in the lives of the natives. But there comes a time when someone must take over from where one has reached. This is the time "Somebody" must make sure the good things he gave to the people of Nkronza when he was able are well managed. Given his love for his people and democracy, Amoateng must be pleased to be replaced in a by-election so that the people of Nkronza North would be served adequately.

Although the New York Eastern District Court in Brooklyn has finally fixed a date that is Friday, April 26, 2006 for the commencement of a full trial for the embattled Nkoranza North MP, Eric Amoateng, we also know that court proceedings for such cases as the Honorable MP is involved in may take years. It must be recalled that Amoateng has been appearing in court in what is described as 'status conference' an American legal term since December 12, 2005 when he was formally charged before District Magistrate, Robert Levy. The fixing of the trial date only is a starting point. Already it has passed three months and the case has not even gone to court yet.

According to the Majority Chief Whip, Osei Kyei Mensah Bonsu, it is unsure that his colleague on the Majority side would lose his seat until a court of competent jurisdiction has proved him guilty. So does it mean that the people of Nkronza North would be left in limbo throughout the times or months of the trial? He went on to say that there have been numerous occasions when Members of Parliament have stayed outside Parliament in contravention of Article 97(1c), who were not punished, and so he did not think that the case of Amoateng would be the first. (GNA Wednesday, 4 January 2006).

A question for the Majority Chief Whip is, under what conditions and for how long was one absent from parliament? He better give us a solid explanation and justification for dancing around the issues. What if Amoateng was in the minority party? There could be adjournments and appeals in this case.

If this happens we may be talking of months or possibly years here. Is it worth to hold the seat vacant till thy kingdom come? Is Amoateng the only statesman from Nkronza North who can represent Nkronza North well? Don't they have other equally competent persons to take over the baton? Although we pray that Mr. Amoateng will be released soon, the government should not allow his constituency to be held in ransom. This is twisting the law and may be deemed as aiding and abetting when the constitution and parliamentary procedures are compromised.

What does the constitution say in such a situation?

Article 97 (1c) states, "A Member Of Parliament shall vacate his seat in Parliament if he is absent, without the permission in writing of the Speaker and is unable to offer a reasonable explanation to the Parliamentary Committee on Privileges, from fifteen sittings of a meeting of Parliament during any period that Parliament has been summoned to meet and continues to meet".

Yes it is true that one is innocent until proven guilty. But did Amoateng seek permission from the Speaker before leaving for USA?. This author is not saying that Amoateng is guilty; he may be innocent but we cannot hold his seat when he has already missed the required number of parliamentary absence and we don't know when he is going to be acquitted and come home. The case would have been different if he had gone on national business (or even followed the rules). Then we could afford to keep his position vacant however long it takes but he went on his own private business.

In as much as we hate to see Mr. Amoateng lose his seat we are also concerned about the precedent being laid here. "Undoubtedly, Mr. Amoateng won the 2004 parliamentary elections and therefore has an interest in serving his four-year term. Further, Mr. Amoateng is entitled to a presumption of innocence in the proceedings against him in USA.

But Mr. Amoateng's interest and the presumption of innocence must be balanced against other weightier interests. First, the Constitution commands that an MP who cannot serve for an indefinite period of time must vacate his seat. Second, the people of Nkoranza North have an interest in being represented in Parliament. Third, Parliament has an interest in protecting its reputation and integrity. Fourth, every citizen has an interest in ensuring that elected members who are unable to serve give way to others. Fifth, the treasury has an interest in paying only MPs who are actually working" (S. Kwaku Asare).

Competitive elections are defeated when we hold elections and an elected MP, for whatever reasons, good or bad, puts himself in a position where he must be absent from parliament ad infinitum. Such an indefinite abstention from Parliament adversely affects the citizens' fundamental right to be represented and does severe damage to Parliament and the Constitution Ghana cannot afford having parliamentarians who cannot attend parliamentary sessions.

It just doesn't augur well for our democracy. It would be recalled that in January 2006 Professor Kwaku Asare wrote in Accra Daily Mail arguing that Mr. Amoateng has vacated his seat. In February 2006, he wrote to the Speaker expressing grave concern about Mr. Amoateng's continued absence from Parliament and urged the Speaker to declare the seat vacant. As of now no satisfactory resolution has emerged.

According to Kwaku Asare the conclusion of the PPC has not been satisfactory. Therefore he has taken the matter to court. The matter has since been brought before the High Court of Ghana This author together with many other Ghanaians fervently hopes that the High Court, will seek some meaningful redress to this harm that is being done to the constitution every day that this matter remains unresolved. The rule of law must prevail over sentiments and emotions.