Bagbin, Mahama attack SC Ruling …tells Plaintiff to seek review

Both former President John Mahama and the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin are unhappy about the Supreme Court judgment on the issue of the voting rights of Deputy Speakers when presiding and have urged the plaintiff, Mr. Justice Abdulai, to go for a review.

Last week, Ghana’s Supreme Court in a unanimous decision ruled that Deputy Speakers, (who are elected Members of Parliament), when presiding over proceedings in Parliament have the right to vote on matters and to be counted as part of the quorum for decision-making in Parliament.

The feedback has been split along party lines and Bagbin, sounded almost near insulting in his response to the ruling and a statement by President Akufo-Addo in support.

“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”, Speaker Bagbin noted in an official statement he released on the matter and urged the plaintiff to return to the Supreme Court for review.

Former President Mahama, also unhappy about the  verdict of the Supreme Court, had this to say on his twitter page:

“The first vote in most cases taken on a motion in Parliament is a voice vote. The Presiding officer, whether the Speaker or any of his/her deputy speakers is supposed to listen to which is the loudest, the ayes or the nays and make a determination.

“If the Deputy Speakers are allowed to vote, then they must take part, first, in the voice vote. If you are presiding and can shout aye or nay with your party in the voice vote, how do you impartially determine which was the loudest?

“What is the determination of the SC? That Deputy Speakers can shout aye or nay with the side they agree or disagree with in the voice vote? The SC is leading us into the realm of absurdity! This judgement is regrettable, and I look forward to the applicant applying for a review of this ruling”, John Mahama added.

Meanwhile, the plaintiff, Justice Abdulai, has hinted that  he will go for a review.

Speaking to the media over the weekend, Justice Abdulai  said this issue about the Deputy Speaker and the substantive Speaker being one, and the same, was something that he thought the Supreme Court should have made a firm pronouncement on it.

He continued: “The Constitution says that whoever occupies a position (whether in an acting or Deputy) has the same powers and authorities as the substantive one. The Standing Orders reaffirms this same position that the Deputy Speaker is the same or occupies the same position or function as the Speaker,

“Because of this difficulty, I expected a more pronouncement on those matters by the Supreme Court to put a finality to that part of it. A firm pronouncement from the Supreme Court would have put some level of clarity and finality to the disagreements that are presently ongoing.”

“In their own judgment, they felt probably it wasn’t borne out of the reliefs that I was seeking so they refused to grant it. That’s fair and part of the legal processes”, he added.