14/03/2022
PRESS RELEASE BY* *TONGU YOUTH FOR DEVELOPMENT.
(SETTING THE RECORDS STRAIGHT,WHAT HON.SAMUEL O. ABLAKWA,HON. ALEXANDER* *GABBY HOTORDZE AND KOBY MENSAH WOYOME MUST KNOW).
Though I WE are not lawyers but the fundamental knowledge we have acquired is enough for us to agree on the following.
Speaker Alban Bagbin’s attack on the President over his Supreme Court ruling comment is disrespectful and smacks of ignorance.
The speaker has lost our respect and courtesies and Ghanaians are to treat him with the same disrespect.
*Parliament is also* *under the law, the* *Constitution:*
As learners of the constitution with big brain studying the constitution ,there is nothing like *parliamentary supremacy* in Ghana.
If a rule in parliament denies a whole constituencies like North Tongu, South Tongu and *CENTRAL TONGU CONSTITUENCY* the decisive right to be heard because our MP are deputy speakers , then such a rule is unconstitutional, *HON.* *ALEXANDER GABBY* *HOTORDZE and his fellow Tongu Mps* must know this.
• *The Supreme Court* *interpretating the* *Constitution does not* *amount to interfering in* *parliamentary* *process.*
It is extremely ignorant for anyone to say that. Yes, Parliament is a master of its own rules *but not* when those rules conflict with explicit provisions of the Constitution, if my memory and knowledge of understanding this part of the constitution serve me right.
*Now, to THE SUPREME COURT RULING*
First of all, In a unanimous decision of the *seven-member panel,* authored by *Justice* *Yonny Kulendi* , the court held that the *1992* Constitution does not place any restriction on a *Deputy* *Speaker* from being part of the quorum for decision making, and to vote on matters for determination.
Secondly, It was the considered view of the court that Deputy Speakers were Members of Parliament (MPs) elected as representatives of constituencies, and therefore causing them to lose their casting vote would amount to *disenfranchising* their constituents in Parliament.
In addition, “To cause a member to forfeit their vote in Parliament merely on account of having to preside over the business of the House in the Speaker’s absence would unfairly *disenfranchise* not only the presiding member but also their *constituents* . Such an interpretation would likely give rise to certain perverse outcomes.
“For example, it could lead to *opportunistic* *absences by a Speaker* or one of the other Deputy Speakers, as an absence would mean a vote loss by the presiding member and their party,” the court held.
Furthermore, the court in its judgement also declared as *unconstitutional* , Order *109(3)* of the Standing Orders of Parliament, which barred a Deputy Speaker from casting a vote on matters for determination.
That declaration raised the question of whether the court could interfere in the operations of Parliament or what has been termed as the *“political doctrine.”*
In answering that question, the court held that the country has over the years practiced *constitutional* *sovereignty* as opposed to *Parliamentary* *sovereignty.*
In view of that, the court held that the 1992 Constitution granted it the power to declare any act by any arm or agency of government, which violated the 1992 Constitution, as null and void.
*“Consequently* , parliamentary standing orders are *subservient* to the Constitution and in any case, no arm of government or agency of the State, including Parliament, is a law unto itself because, without exception, everyone and everything in Ghana is subject to the Constitution,” the court held.
Fellow Ghanaians, On the issue of *quorum* , the *apex court* was of the view that the 1992 Constitution *distinguishes between a* *quorum for business* *of Parliament,* which is *Article 102* , and the quorum for decision-making, which is *Article 104.*
It held that whereas Article 102 prevented any person presiding, either Speaker or Deputy Speaker, from being part of the quorum for business of the House, Article 104(1) prevented only the *person elected* *as Speaker* and *not* *the Deputies* from forming part of that quorum.
*Non- voting quorum*
“As to the non-voting quorum, Article *102* makes it clear that a *presiding Deputy* *Speaker,* who is a Member of Parliament and present, shall not be counted in determining the number. I asked" what are the stand of our presiding members at our local assemblies? Don't they share the same view?
“However, when it comes to determining the “voting quorum” under Article 104(1), no such restriction or limitation is placed on a presiding member or Deputy Speaker. The non-inclusion of the phrase *“apart from the* *person presiding* *”* in Article 104(1) must have been deliberate. To hold otherwise would amount to *impugning* the wisdom of the framers of the constitution and supplanting their clear intent,” the court held.
Concerned members of this country, On the issue of *a* *Deputy Speaker* *voting* , the court held that there was clear distinction between a person *elected as* Speaker and a Deputy Speaker.
The court was of the view that per Article 97(1), a *Speaker cannot* *be an MP* , *but* *all Deputy Speakers were* *MPs.*
It further held that Article 104(2) specifically mentioned that “The Speaker” was prevented from casting a vote and *not* other persons, such as Deputy Speakers, presiding over proceedings of Parliament.
*“Significantly* , the *voting disqualification* *in Article 104(2)* is *specific to the Speaker,* and therefore does *not* apply generally to “ *the* *person presiding* .”
“The *Speaker is* *disqualified* from voting *not* because he or she presides over sittings of Parliament, *but* because the Speaker is not a member of Parliament, voting being a right only for members of Parliament,” the court held.
It was also the considered view of the court that the only instance whereby a Deputy Speaker or any MP was *barred from* *voting* *on the floor of* *Parliament was under* *Article 104(5), which is* *when the MP had a* *conflict of interest in a* *specific contract under* *consideration.*
“Presiding at a sitting of Parliament is not intended by the framers of our Constitution to be a disqualifying conflict of interest and therefore, a presiding Deputy Speaker does not forfeit his or her right to vote merely by virtue of presiding in the absence of the Speaker,” the court held.
I wish those challenging this interpretation should remove their political spectacle and read to the best understanding our our constitution.
bless our homeland Ghana.
bless our courts
bless my Tongu Constituencies
bless my hometown.
Thank you all.
