Majority Leader Mahama Ayariga has argued against any move to declare the parliamentary seat of Asante Akyem North MP Ohene Kwame Frimpong vacant, insisting that Parliament’s rules do not support such action while a member is standing trial.
Speaking in an interview on Citi FM on July 16, 2026, Ayariga said Frimpong’s absence from Parliament is beyond his control because he is being detained and therefore cannot attend proceedings even if he wished to do so.
“The person is absent because he has been apprehended elsewhere and is being detained against his will. Even if he wanted to come to Parliament, he would not be able to,” he explained.
He also warned that declaring the seat vacant under such circumstances could create a troubling precedent, making it possible for elected lawmakers to lose their seats based on allegations that may later prove unfounded.
“If we allow that precedent, what will happen is that an MP could be arrested on the basis of trumped-up charges, and then after 15 days, we will say his seat is vacant,” Ayariga said.
According to the Majority Leader, Parliament is unlikely to invoke the constitutional provision to vacate Frimpong’s seat despite his extended absence from the House.
Frimpong was arrested at Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam on May 8 over allegations of money laundering and romance scam-related offences. His detention has since raised questions over whether Article 97(1)(c) of the 1992 Constitution, which provides for the loss of a parliamentary seat after 15 consecutive sittings without permission, should apply in his case.
Ayariga maintained that parliamentary practice has consistently recognised situations where an MP is unable to attend sittings because of circumstances outside their control, particularly when they are under arrest or facing prosecution.
“The practice of the House has always been that if a person is absent due to circumstances beyond their control, we wait. For example, if the person is arrested, incarcerated, and being prosecuted,” he stated.
He stressed that a lawmaker who is being detained should not be treated the same as one who deliberately chooses to stay away from parliamentary proceedings.
