Speaker of Parliament, Rt. Hon Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin is confused about which democratic path to take.
Though he had urged members of Parliament to take their concerns about the status of Deputy Speakers to the Supreme Court for interpretation, the Speaker sounded disenchanted with the ruling of the Supreme Court on the right of Deputy Speakers to vote while presiding.
On February 15, 2022, Speaker Alban Bagbin expressed his approval that MPs are heading to the court to seek clarification on constitutional matters and stated these actions are welcoming developments as the country will be guided at the end of the day.
He said, “In view of the fact that there are issues about Deputy Speaker, whether he is acting Speaker, his right to vote or not to vote. I am happy that some Members of Parliament are involved in trying to get clarification on these constitutional matters from the courts.”
“Some of you have proceeded by issuing original Writs at the courts for interpretation; they are welcoming developments because, at the end of the day, we will be guided in these matters. These are new grounds, and this is the time for us to learn and improve on our system.”
“So, I would want to urge you all to continue to maintain cool-heads. Let us think through these matters together and find solutions to some of the conceptual challenges that the Constitution has imposed on the country.”
Bagbin fires Akufo-Addo: Your myopic comment on Supreme Court ruling absurd and unfortunate https://t.co/YMwb2o9Tkl
— MyPublisher24 (@GhPublisher) March 11, 2022
Speaker Alban Bagbin has, however, condemned the decision of the Apex Court on the rights of Deputy Speakers to vote while presiding and said, “Is, to say the least, not only an absurdity but a reckless incursion into the remit of Parliament,” and argued the trend of unanimity is equally troubling and doesn’t help explore and expand Ghana’s legal jurisprudence.
According to the Supreme Court, Deputy Speakers are entitled to be counted as Members of Parliament for purposes of quorum and can take part in a vote while presiding over proceedings in the House.
The suit was filed by a lawyer cum law lecturer, Justice Abdulai, who 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.
Full judgment: Supreme Court ruling on Deputy Speakers’ voting rights https://t.co/pJ8OSZPVXt
— MyPublisher24 (@GhPublisher) March 11, 2022
In a statement issued on Friday, March 11, 2022, the Speaker wrote: “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.”
He encouraged Plaintiff to go for a review.
