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. |
Do you seriously need extra income to solve your financial challenges? What if there is a legitimate business you can start today using very little money, and without quitting your current job, that can help you fix your money challenges? This is for only serious minded people. Copy the link and paste it in your browser to learn more... https://importationmillionaires.com
Its a healthy exercise and Ghana's democracy is still young and learning. One day the tables will turn and the NDC will now thank the supreme court for its ruling. For Sam George and the other Minority thugs I say Shame unto them. They should stop throwing dust into people's eyes. Its also a lesson for the ruling NPP. They must work very had and avoid losing seats in Parliament to avoid this self imflicted and unnecessary pain they've caused the Party. Next time they must work to win a convincing majority un order to project and implement their policies. God save our Democracy and safe Ghana.
This is a landmark ruling and the wisdom in the ruling very great. No MP was elected at his constituency and sent by his constituents to go to parliament to be converted to a deputy speaker and loose all his rights. Haruna Iddrisu or Sam George cannot tell me that they will speak and vote for Tamale and Ningo Prampram constituents and deny Joe Wise the right to speak and vote for Bekwai people. What kind of logic was that? The law is clear but they have deliberately decided to twist it but thanks to the supreme and the one one who petitioned the court for interpretation
Very sad. It’s a common knowledge that every MP has that inalienable right to debate and vote on an issue on the floor. However, for the sake of fairness, equity, justice etc, anyone presiding as per the standing orders cannot vote nor actively participate in a debate on the floor. Long tested parliamentary norm. A fair minded supreme court should not be so quick and loud on the voting right alone but should be equally be concern on the deputy speaker’s right to actively participate in a debate whilst presiding?. # RESTORE THE DEPUTY SPEAKER RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN ACTIVATE DEBATE ON THE FLOOR WHILST PRESIDING.
I Am Earning $81,100 so Far this year working 0nline and I am a full time college student and just working for 3 to 4 hours a day I've made such great m0ney.I am Genuinely thankful to and my administrator, It's' really user friendly and I'm just so happY that I found out about this.............. HERE -------->> Www.richnow1.com
OH NDC IGNOOOORACE IS DEASE SO WHAT ARE THEY TELLING THE YOUTH IN GHANA IGNOOOOORANCE UNRULLY, ARROOOOGANT. THIS CASE WAS CLEAR AS A DAYLIGHT SO WHY ARE STILL CANNOT UNDERSTAND, IS THE SAME IN GHANA, SAME IN AUSTRALIA,CANADA, AMERICA, BRITAIN, KENYA, SOUTH AFRICA. EVEN A STUDENT MARKING CLASS REGISTER WILL MARK STUDENTS IN THE CLASS WHO ARE PRENT AND MARK HIMSELF TOO SO WHERE DO THESE NDC UNDUCATED NEED TO UNDERSTAN LOOOOOOSERS LEADERS. DO YOUR RESEARCH AND YOU WILL SEE IT. THEY STILL TALKING TO MEDIA THAT THEY WILL NOT AGREED TO IT IN PARLIAMENT. IT A SHAME WE HAVE A PARTY THAT IS SO IGNOOOOORANT THAT IS NOT FUNNY. EVEN SO CALLED LAWYERS AMONG IS VERY SICCK. NDC SO IGNOOOOOOORANT, LOOOOOOOOSERS THEY DON'T EVEN UNDERSTANT THE CONSTITUTION, CANNOT EVEN INTERPRATE THE LAW. AGAIN INEVERYTHING THEY HAVE NO SOLUTION EXCEPT CRITISIMS SUCH LOOOOOOSERS LEADERS AND LOOOOOTERS.
Please some body should extend to the president that our taps are not flowing for about two weeks now, we are really suffering.We know there is climate change but atleast government should repair the machine which filters deep sea water based at nungua for to flash our toilets.we are really suffering.No water at Nungua
It appears that they selected f0uuls and hool1gans to form the NDC party. From primary level to professorial level, their behaviours are the same as those in the Nursery class. Learn from the NPP, a wisdom party full of intellectuals and discipline. Lecturers who are members of the NPP control their sexual desire, unlike the NDC lecturers who brag and demand sex from female students. Indeed, NPP is a storehouse of"Law". Wisdom does not reside in professors' minds; some professors are respected by their deeds, whereas others are blinded by their party colours, so they always speak like their bodies.
So what will John Mahama and Asiedu Nketiah say about the disgraceful action of NDC MPs on that day in Parliament. John said they were defending the constitution ....which constitution? that of the NDC or Ghana? Pls Mr former president, don't allow power to destroy the status you have achieved in society. You can do better if you stop your inordinate ambition to become a president again. How many people in Ghana of a population of 30 million will ever have the opportunity to become president of Ghana? God has blessed you since you didn't even expect to become president at the time you did so give thanks to God and retire in dignity and as a true statesman. Today's ruling by the SC has really exposed and disgraced your pronouncements on the sad event that happened in parliament. Please apologize to Ghanaians since some of don't have short memories. As for Mr Asiedu Nketiah, the least said to him and about him the better.
TEN GOLDEN STEPS TO AVOID E LEVY LEGALLY 1.Either Deposits money or transfer fom you bank into u wallets currently it's free. 2. SMS/WHATSUP your contact no, voter I'd no to recipient to go to a known vendor/VENDOR 'S NAME KNOWN TO THE SENDER. 3. While on phone / video call with u recipient WHO IS right infront of the vendor FOR CONFIRMATION. YOUR RECIPIENT WILL let the vendor initiate allow cash out in order TO CASH OUT MONEY ON THE SENDER"S no. PLEASE NOTE recipient should let vendor initiate cash out on senders no, not on the recipient no. simultaneously as u /SENDER also start CASH OUT processes 4.communicate exact amount to withdraw, 5.Few minutes, prompt to SENDER to confirm WITHRAWAL. 6. Cash will be paid to your brother/recipient who is at vendor's end as if u were there physically 7. No e levy wahala 8. Transfers charges (only withrawal) 9. Tip the vendor 10. Smart Digital withdrawal technology.