Gabby Asare Otchere Darko has said that it’s okay to forgive John Dramani Mahama’s reaction to the Supreme Court ruling that indicates that the Deputy Speaker of Parliament can be counted as part of a quorum even when he is presiding over the sitting.
John Dramani Mahama indicated in his reaction to the ruling that he is shocked but not surprised.
The former President tweeted, “An unfortunate interpretation for convenience that sets a dangerous precedent of judicial interference in Parliamentary procedure for the future.”
“If Deputy Speakers, because they are Members of Parliament, can vote while presiding as Speaker, they could as well be able to participate in any debate on the floor over which they are presiding. This is the absurdity into which the Supreme Court ruling leads us,” he added.
But reacting to the former President’s understanding of the ruling, Gabby Otchere-Darko indicated that he can be pardoned “because his elementary understanding of the law is evidently small.
He, however, indicated that the same cannot be said of the Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin who is a lawyer and should have an unblemished understanding or interpretation of the law.
Gabby tweeted on Saturday, March 12 said, “You may choose to forgive John Mahama because his elementary understanding of the law is evidently small, going by his reactions to Supreme Court decisions – except ex-presidents are expected not to speak loosely against the 3 arms of Govt. But, what about lawyer Alban Bagbin?”
You may choose to forgive John Mahama because his elementary understanding of the law is evidently small, going by his reactions to Supreme Court decisions – except ex-presidents are expected not to speak loosely against the 3 arms of Govt. But, what about lawyer Alban Bagbin?
— Gabby Otchere-Darko (@GabbyDarko) March 12, 2022
Speaker Alban Sumana Bagbin in a statement said: “I have resisted the temptation of making a comment on the judgment of the Supreme Court on the issue of the voting rights of Deputy Speakers when presiding. But the unfortunate and myopic comment of the President has compelled me to let it out.”
“The SC decision is, to say the least, not only an absurdity but a reckless incursion into the remit of Parliament. The trend of unanimity is equally troubling. It doesn’t help explore and expand our legal jurisprudence. The President’s comment is myopic and unfortunate. It only goes to worsen the schism between the Executive and Parliament. The impartiality of the Speaker, Deputy Speaker or Presiding Officer has been treasured and fought for by this country throughout our democratic development. Mr President, the issue being discussed is not about Parliament being above the law. Everyone knows that Parliament is not above the law.”
“The Executive and the Judiciary are equally not above the law. The issue being discussed is the political question doctrine. It took centuries to detail out the strands of this doctrine and the principles are settled as to when and how this closed book could be opened. Please, I encourage the Plaintiff to go for a review.”
