Suame Member of Parliament John Darko has cautioned journalists against portraying parliamentary privilege as blanket immunity for Members of Parliament.
According to him, the legal protections are subject to specific conditions and limitations.
Parliamentary privilege, he said, exists to enable MPs to perform their constitutional duties without undue interference, but does not exempt them from accountability for actions outside their official parliamentary functions.
Also read: The top 10 causes of death in the world
Mr Darko, who represented Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin at a two-day training workshop for members of the Parliamentary Press Corps (PPC) in Accra last Thursday, urged journalists to exercise greater precision when reporting issues involving parliamentary privilege and immunity.
“Know that protection belongs to the institution and its work, not to every act of an MP,” he said.
He explained that the protection is to safeguard Parliament’s work rather than provide personal immunity to lawmakers in every circumstance.
“Parliamentary privilege is available to Honorable John Darko to enable him to discharge his constitutional mandate without let or hindrance, and not to his personhood in his private capacity as John Darko,” he stated.
According to him, journalists must understand the circumstances under which parliamentary privilege applies before making claims about the legal protection available to MPs.
Mr Darko also warned that privilege should not be interpreted as permission for lawmakers to make irresponsible statements without consequences.
“Whatever you say in Parliament, you enjoy privilege. But that privilege also enjoins you not to be irresponsible,” he said.
He noted that MPs are expected to substantiate claims made during parliamentary debates and could be directed by the Speaker to withdraw statements they could not support.
The Suame MP distinguished parliamentary privilege from immunity, explaining that the concepts serve different purposes.
While privilege protects the rights necessary for Parliament and its members to perform their official duties, immunity provides specific legal protections against certain procedures or compulsory attendance.
He cautioned journalists against interpreting either concept as placing MPs above the law.
“Neither term means above the law. Always ask, what activity? Where? When? Which provisions?” he told participants.
The circumstances surrounding a statement, Mr. John Darko said, are critical in determining whether parliamentary privilege applies.
He urged reporters to distinguish statements made during parliamentary proceedings and committee meetings from comments delivered at press conferences, radio discussions and television interviews outside official parliamentary functions.
He added that parliamentary committees could perform official duties outside the parliamentary chamber, meaning the location alone would not determine whether privilege applies.
Protection could also extend to witnesses summoned before parliamentary committees and individuals performing authorised functions on Parliament’s behalf, subject to applicable rules.
Mr Darko urged journalists to avoid sweeping descriptions that could mislead the public about the scope of parliamentary protections.