The Supreme Court has by a unanimous decision settled the contentious issue on the rights of a Deputy Speaker regarding voting in the House as a Member of Parliament (MP)
The apex court on Wednesday, ruled that a "Deputy Speaker is entitled to be counted as a member of Parliament for quorum" and can as well "vote and take part in the decision of parliament."
An action by Mr Osei-Owusu in November last year, in counting himself as an MP, enabled the Majority in Parliament to form the right quorum under Article 104(1) in order to pass the budget.
By this ruling, the Supreme Court has affirmed and legitimized the approval of the 2022 Budget passed in the absence of the NDC Minority Caucus on November 30, 2021.
The seven member panel that adjudicated the case comprised Justices Jones Dotse, Nene Amegatcher, Prof Ashie Kotey, Mariama Owusu, Lovelace Johnson, Clemence Honyenuga and Emmanuel Kulendi.
Presided over by Justice Jones Dotse, the court also struck down Order 109(3) of the Standing Orders of Parliament as unconstitutional.
A lawyer and law lecturer, Justice Abdullai filed a case against the Attorney General calling on the Supreme Court to interpret Articles 102 and 104 of the 1992 Constitution and declare the action of Mr Osei Owusu as unconstitutional.
He had also wanted the Supreme Court to declare the whole proceedings in Parliament on November 30, 2021, which led to the passage of the 2022 budget as unconstitutional insisting the Deputy Speaker should not have counted himself as an MP when he presided over proceedings.
However, the Attorney-General (A-G), Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, in a defence on behalf of the state, argued that there is no express provision in the 1992 Constitution that stopped a Deputy Speaker presiding over proceedings from voting or counting himself as part of MPs present in order to form the right quorum.
Justice Abdulai’s case
The plaintiff was of the view that the 1992 Constitution did not allow a person presiding over proceedings in Parliament to have an original or casting vote, or to be part of a quorum.
In support of his case, he relied on Article 102 of the 1992 Constitution which provides that “a quorum of Parliament, apart from the person presiding, shall be one-third of all Members of Parliament”, and Article 104 (1) which provides that matters in Parliament “shall be determined by votes of majority members present and voting, with at least half of all members of Parliament present.”
He also cited Article 104 (2) of the 1992 Constitution which stipulates that: “The Speaker shall have neither original nor casting vote.”
It was the case of Mr Abdulai that the First or Second Deputy Speakers of Parliament, when presiding, have the “same authority and mandate just like the Right Honourable Speaker”, and therefore cannot vote or be part of the quorum.
A-G’s case
The A-G disagreed with the plaintiff and argued that the quorum in Parliament formed under Article 102 is different from the quorum formed under Article 104 of the 1992 Constitution.
It was the case of Mr Dame that the quorum under Article 102 is for the conduct of business in Parliament, and that is why Article 102 provides that it should be one-third of members.
“Given that Parliament presently is made up of 275 members, the quorum under Article 102 for the conduct of its business is 92 MPs,” the A-G submitted.
According to the A-G, based on the clear provision of Article 102, any person presiding, either the Speaker or Deputy Speakers, is precluded from being part of that quorum.
On the other hand, the A-G was of the view that the quorum under Article 104 (1) which dealt with the determination of matters through voting in Parliament requires at least half of all MPs, and such a quorum is not the same as the one in Article 102.
Mr Dame contended that unlike Article 102 which precludes a “person presiding” from being part of the quorum, Article 104 (2) specifically precludes “The Speaker”.
The A-G, therefore, held the position that only the person elected as “The Speaker” of Parliament is barred from forming part of the quorum under Article 104 when presiding, and not Deputy Speakers who preside over proceedings.
In their landmark ruling, the seven member panel affirmed the arguments of the Attorney General.
Source: Peacefmonline.com/Ghana with additional files from Graphic.com
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are those of the writers and do not reflect those of Peacefmonline.com. Peacefmonline.com accepts no responsibility legal or otherwise for their accuracy of content. Please report any inappropriate content to us, and we will evaluate it as a matter of priority. |
Lawless Ndc party and their hoo lig ans members of parliament seen their smoothness level.
The minority MPs who disrupted parliamentary work with their thuggery about this issue must be prosecuted as well. They knew their actions were illegal but they lied to Ghanaians that the majority are rather abusing the constitution so they defended it.
This ruling is very sound and accords with common sense and logic. The Deputy Speaker cannot be deemed to be at the same level with the Speaker. The deputy speaker is an elected member of parliament representing his constituents. He remains a member of parliament at all times whether he is the one presiding or not. The Speaker does not represent any constituency and therefore, has neither an original nor a casting vote. It is not for nothing that the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded the Speaker from voting and being counted for purposes of a quorum. If the framers of the Constitution wanted the deputy speaker to abstain from voting when presiding, they would have said so. It is in the interest of the public that the nation does not come to a standstill. If most government actions are controlled by Parliament as demanded by the Constitution then the Constitution being a living organism which is capable of growth, must be interpreted in such a liberal and broad manner that life and effect can be given to its spirit at any point in time. Members of Parliament are first and foremost elected to represent the views of their constituents. The constituents never send anybody to Parliament to become a deputy speaker. The legitimate expectation of the people is that their elected representatives will at all times partake in the decision making of parliament. Any interpretation of the Constitution that will take away this legitimate expectation will, therefore, be incongruous with both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution. KUDOS to the SC for the good job done.
David, I think sometimes they really know the right thing but ...
For me it's difficult to understand whether we have law school ndc members and law school npp members. Because the difference is too huge.