The etymology of the word quorum is Latin, which means “of whom.” In English, quorum once referred to the number of justices of the peace who had to be present to form a legally valid bench. That meaning is now uncommon, and quorum has come to mean both “a select group” and “the minimum people required to conduct business.” Quorum forms the bedrock of a successful meeting.
Parliament has a mandate to represent its constituents. The daily business of this representation involves some parliamentary deliberations. For the business of the day to begin, parliament needs a quorum. Just like any other meeting, a minimum number of Members is needed for the business of the day to commence. This is what is referred to as a parliamentary quorum.
In other words, in Ghana’s parliamentary parlance, quorum refers to the minimum number of MPs required to be present in the house to be able to conduct business. Pursuant to Article 102 of the 1992 constitution, one-third of all members of parliament, excluding the Speaker of Parliament, constitutes a quorum in the parliament of Ghana. Article 102 states, ” A quorum of parliament, apart from the person presiding, shall be one third of all Members of Parliament.”
This means that for parliamentary proceedings to commence, there shall be present in the House one-third of all members of Parliament. There are 276 legislators in the parliament of Ghana. Thus, one-third of 276 is 92 members of Parliament. This means that, according to Article 102 of the 1992 constitution, Parliament can commence sitting only when there are 92 members of Parliament in the chamber.
On several occasions, you see parliamentary sittings commencing without 92 members in the chamber. Can it be said, therefore, that Parliament has been breaching the constitution, or is Parliament its master of its rules, or the usual saying that quorum depends on the mood in the chamber? These are essential questions that raise procedural challenges with our parliamentary process in Ghana.
What is the definition of present in the house? Members sometimes sign in as present, undergo the roll call, but have other pressing engagements at the committee or important issues that require them to be in the Office from where they can still follow the parliamentary proceedings.
When a member has come to parliament and has signed in as present but is involved in a committee sitting, would that member be said to be present? After the Roll call in the chamber, should parliamentary proceedings commence only when there are 92 MPs, even if the roll call has more than 92 but the numbers in the Chamber do not amount to 92?
The phrase in Article 102 states that a quorum in parliament shall be one-third of all MPs. It doesn’t say these members should be present in the chamber or could be in a committee or be involved in other important parliamentary business outside of the chamber. Do we consider this a lacuna in the 1992 constitution?
It is common to hear members of parliament say there are two quorums in the house. Quorum for commencing a parliamentary sitting as referenced in Article 102 of the 1992 constitution and quorum to vote or take an important decision as referenced in Article 104 of the 1992 constitution.
Article 104 establishes that “except as otherwise provided in this constitution, matters in parliament shall be determined by the votes of the majority of the members present and voting, with at least half of all the members of parliament present.
While this article distinguishes between the quorum for commencing business and the quorum for voting or decision-making, it provides some level of clarity on the meaning of ‘present in the house’.
Thus, we can deduce from Article 104 of the 1992 constitution that quorum does not mean just signing in present or after a roll call, but present in the chamber of the Parliament at the time the sitting is about to commence.
In meetings, a quorum is always a prerequisite to ensure that a small number of people do not decide on behalf of a larger group. It ensures representation. This ensures that Parliamentary business commences with a representative number of MPs. This promotes accountability, transparency, and good governance.
Just as the Parliamentary quorum has its own merits, it has a lot of challenges. It is a tool for disrupting Parliamentary procedure, especially by the opposition. The impact of such disruptions is that they delay the decision-making process, thereby disrupting or delaying the timely passage of important bills. For instance, a lack of quorum on July 21, 2025, led to the deferment of the second reading of the Ghana Medical Trust Fund Bill. At the time, there were only 58 MPs in the chamber instead of the needed 138 MPs. This led to an adjournment of the parliamentary process.
Quorum is a tool also used to delay parliamentary processes and for the timely passage of important bills and decisions. On 7th February 2025, parliament had to adjourn because the first Deputy Minority Chief Whip, Hon. Habib Iddrisu, raised concerns about the absence of a quorum. This leads to a delay in executing parliamentary business. On July 15, 2024, the sitting was brought to an abrupt end with 24 more members needed for a quorum to be formed. The ability to get members in the chamber portrays a government as lacking the political will and commitment to execute government business and their commitment to the work of parliament as a whole.
The framers of the 1992 constitution were smart to include the provision for a quorum. This instrument plays a crucial role in Ghana’s parliamentary democracy. The quorum, as applied in parliamentary procedures, has some challenges, controversies, and gaps; however, it still stands as an important provision of parliamentary democracy that ensures representativeness in policy making and ensures transparency and accountable governance. Understanding the dynamics and the challenges surrounding parliamentary quorum will help Ghanaians appreciate effectively how parliamentary business is transacted under the Fourth Republic of Ghana.
Written by Nartey Prosper Kwame (A Columnist)
