Supreme Court's 7-0 ruling sets dangerous precedent for Parliamentary procedure in future - Mahama

Former President John Dramani Mahama has described the Supreme Court’s unanimous 7-0 ruling on Deputy Speakers being able to vote while presiding in Parliament as shocking but not surprising.

The former President in a tweet described the ruling as an unfortunate interpretation for convenience and warned that sets a dangerous precedent of judicial interference in Parliamentary procedure for the future.

He tweeted, :

The Supreme Court on Wednesday 9th March ruled that Deputy Speakers of Parliament can take part in a vote while presiding over proceedings in the House.

This followed a suit filed by lawyer cum law lecturer, Justice Abdulai, that invited the Supreme Court to pronounce as unconstitutional, First Deputy Speaker, Joseph Osei Owusu’s action of counting himself for the purposes of quorum during the controversial decision to overturn the 2022 budget, which had earlier been rejected and thrown out by the Minority side.

Justice Abdulai in his writ argued that in the context of articles 102 and 104 of the 1992 Constitution, the Deputy Speaker was not permitted to count himself for the purposes of quorum, since he had neither an original nor a casting vote as Speaker presiding.

The Supreme Court, however, has dismissed that application and ruled that any Deputy Speaker of Parliament can participate in voting while in the Chair. The panel was presided over by Justice Jones Dotse

Deputy Speaker can vote and form quorum for decision making – Supreme Court rules https://t.co/MTcHbQL6Sv
— MyPublisher24 (@GhPublisher) March 9, 2022

Meanwhile, 1st Deputy Speaker of Parliament Joseph Osei-Owusu has described the ruling as vindication of his position since controversy on the E-levy erupted.

According to him, the ruling is a guide to Parliament because events that have never come up before and not clearly marked out by the Standing Orders have now been cleared by the Supreme Court.

“I think it will help us advance our democracy and our practice in this Chamber,” he said

He added anytime there is disagreement in the Chamber while he presides, he will interpret the rules and the laws as he understands them.