During the correction of Votes and Proceedings at the beginning of the first sitting of the Ninth Parliament, the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, remarked that it was his duty to “protect the micro-Minority” in the Chamber. 

The Minority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, took strong exception to the Speaker’s use of the term, insisting that the rules of the House recognised only the Minority and the Majority.  

“Mr Speaker, the Minority Caucus hereby protests the description given to us by Mr Speaker. We find this unacceptable,” he said. He explained how the Minority had seconded the proposal and the motion for the Speaker’s election. 

Protect us

Mr Afenyo-Markin further claimed that when the Majority was “conspiring” against the Speaker, it was the Minority that protested and stopped such actions.  

“Mr Speaker, it was us, the Minority of conscience, who protected you; in fact, but for us, you would not be the Speaker.  

“We do not accept the description ‘micro-Minority’; we are Minority, simplicita,” he declared, urging the Speaker to simply describe the New Patriotic Party (NPP) caucus as the Minority.  

The Effutu MP expressed concern that the Speaker might be assisting the Majority in their debates. “Mr Speaker, you seem to be doing their debate for them.  

“We are the official Minority, and there cannot be any other description. It should not be used by anybody on the floor of this House. 

“From today, nobody should use that term in this House,” Mr Afenyo-Markin stressed, calling on the Speaker to protect the Minority.  

Minority Leader misled me  

Responding to the protest, Speaker Bagbin acknowledged the Minority Leader’s concerns, admitting that the term “micro-Minority” was not recognised by the rules of the House. 

“He is totally right, and I would say that he himself (Afenyo-Markin) misled me because he himself has used the term ‘micro-Minority.’  

“Honourable Members, the objection is to the fact that the term should not be formally recognised in the records of Parliament, and I agree with you,” the Speaker conceded. 

However, Mr Bagbin clarified that while the term should not be used by the Speaker, it could be used by the Leaders in their discussions. Despite this clarification, his assertion that the term was “not subject to debate” seemed to fall on deaf ears in the House.