Member of Parliament for Akwapim South Constituency, Osei Bonsu Amoah, has stated the Supreme Court ruling on the voting rights of Deputy Speakers will ultimately pull the brakes on any Speaker who might decide to play mischief with the close numbers in Parliament.
The Apex Court, he said, hit the nail right on the head when it decided a presiding Deputy Speaker does not forfeit his or her right to vote merely by virtue of presiding in the absence of the Speaker.
According to him, had the ruling been otherwise, a Speaker harbouring a certain motive could deliberately absent himself or herself simply to reduce the numbers of one side of the House to defeat a crucial vote.
Speaking on the Key Points on TV3 on Saturday on the Supreme Court’s decision, Hon. O.B. Amoah noted that trust in the Speaker to do the right is good but stressed control is better.
He stated that people are not put in these positions just to trust them and argued the system should check what is done and what they do.
He said, “So if for any reason, a Speaker decides that anytime I am away, the Deputy Speaker who doesn’t like my side and does not have a vote when the vote is tight, then they will lose the vote, why not?”
“Even if that is not his motive people will go to him that today why don’t you report sick or absent so the Deputy Speaker is deprived of his vote.”
“So the ruling is guarding against opportunistic absences,” he stated.
The Supreme Court in its ruling on page 23 indicated that Parliament operates on the standard democratic principle of equal representation or “one member, one vote,” with matters decided by majority vote.
According to the Court, to, therefore, cause a member to forfeit their vote in Parliament merely on account of having to preside over the business of the House in the Speaker’s absence would unfairly disenfranchise not only the presiding member but also their constituents.
“Such an interpretation would likely give rise to certain perverse outcomes and/or incentives. For example, it could lead to opportunistic absences by a speaker or one or the other deputy speakers as an absence would mean a vote loss by the presiding member and their party.”
“In particular, as article 96(1)(b) of the Constitution requires that the first and second deputy speakers come from different political parties, an interpretation that deprives a presiding deputy speaker of their vote could give the rival party an unfair advantage in a sharply divided vote,” the ruling states.
Hon. Amoah observed that the major issue that led to the Supreme Court was an interpretation of the Constitution and stressed that following the ruling there should be no more interpretations that will generate the kind of chaos witnessed last year.
Source: MyPublisher24.com