Hon. Joseph Osei Owusu has gone on the offensive against Speaker Alban S.K. Bagbin and described his pronouncements on the ‘COVID probe Motion’ rule as an epitome of intolerance of differing views.
He argued holding a different view on issues from Mr. Speaker should not be something new and indicated Speaker Bagbin appears to think holding a different view from him is unbecoming and an insubordinate of a deputy speaker.
Deputy Speakers or any person presiding, he said, exercises the same powers and applies the same Standing Orders and Constitutional provisions to manage the House while on the Chair.
“It is not the case of the President and his Vice as Mr. Speaker suggests,” he stated.
Hon. Osei Owusu (Joe Wise) issued a statement in response to a formal communication by Speaker Alban Bagbin on the 1st Deputy Speaker’s decision to overturn and throw out a Private Member’s Motion that he (the Speaker) had admitted.
Mr. Speaker described the decision by Joe Wise to overrule his decision to admit the Private Members Motion as illegal.
“The penchant of the Deputy Speaker to set aside my rulings is illegal, unconstitutional and offensive,” Mr. Speaker said.
According to Joe Wise, Mr. Speaker’s description of his ruling is most unfair and totally un-reflective of his conduct as the First Deputy Speaker in the 7th and 8th Parliament.
He said, “Ladies and gentlemen, admission of a motion by the speaker, is an administrative exercise. When the Speaker admits a motion and forwards it through the process to the Business Committee and same is programmed and advertised on the Order Paper, that marks the end of that process. The admission of the motion is complete, A fais accompli”.”
“I cannot by any stretch of imagination see how that can be called a ruling of Mr. Speaker and how I can overturn any such ruling,” he queried?
The First Deputy Speaker noted once a motion has been advertised on the Order Paper before the House, a member is entitled to raise an objection to question its legality or otherwise and stressed when any such objection is raised and argued as was the case on Tuesday 22nd of February, the presiding officer whether it is Mr. Speaker himself, any of his deputies or a member elected to preside, that presiding officer is duty-bound to make a ruling after that objection has been argued.
“After I heard arguments from the proponents of the motion and adversaries, I was convinced that the objection was well placed and I, therefore, sustained it. It was never a review of any decision earlier taken by Mr. Speaker to admit the motion to set up a special committee, as he seems to suggest in his formal communication,” he added.
He stressed he has never shied away from showing his disagreement with the Speaker if need be and noted that is what democracy is about and ought to be.
Mr. Speaker, he said, should rather have the courage to accept that others may hold a different view from his own even if they are subordinate to him.
Source: Mypublisher24.com
