MPs admit to erring in passing Companies Act’
Members of Parliament have acknowledged that mistakes were made during the enactment of the Companies Act 2019, specifically with reference to a clause that said an accused individual may not hold the position of company director. The Supreme Court ruled in a court judgment that this particular clause was in conflict with the 1992 Constitution….

Members of Parliament have acknowledged that mistakes were made during the enactment of the Companies Act 2019, specifically with reference to a clause that said an accused individual may not hold the position of company director.
The Supreme Court ruled in a court judgment that this particular clause was in conflict with the 1992 Constitution.
The Attorney General’s office has been requested by the Court to present it to Parliament so that the required adjustments may be made.
The lawsuit brought by attorney Derick Adu-Gyamfi, who claimed that several Act subsections were illegal and went against fundamental rights like fair hearing, gave rise to the constitutional issue that resulted to this ruling.
Haruna Iddrisu, the Member of Parliament (MP) for Tamale South, publicly admitted that the disqualified director clause was a legislative blunder and urged the Attorney General to submit an adjustment to Parliament for examination and approval as soon as possible.
“In the company’s code we passed, we said that if a person is charged with an offence, that person does not qualify to be a director. We erred and we should eat our humble pie, and by this, invite the learned Attorney General to come urgently to this House with proposed amendments to the company’s code so that we right those wrong,” Haruna Iddrisu stated.
The perspective was echoed by Sarah Adwoa Safo, the MP for Dome-Kwabenya, who seconded the call.
“I don’t want to over-buttress the point that indeed the Supreme Court has done a great job, and the Attorney General, I am sure, has heard the ruling of the Supreme Court and will do the needful and bring a proposed bill only to amend that portion of the company’s code,” she added.