…How The Majority ‘Aborted’ Hackman Owusu-Agyeman’s Second Substantive Motion Asking Parliament To Urge Speaker Annan To Review His December 9, 1998 Ruling! (1)
JJ ‘RESURRECTS’ ABACHA’s $5m SAGA (7)
PRIVATE MEMBER’S MOTION
Allegation Of Improper Payment To The President (Tuesday, 15th December, 1998) (1)
*Mr. Hackman Owusu-Agyemang (NPP – New Juaben North): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, That this House urges the Rt. Hon. Speaker to review his decision not to admit the urgent motion on the setting up of a Board of inquiry to look into the allegation of improper payment to the President by the Government of former Nigerian Head of State, General Sani Abacha; which urgent motion was originally submitted by the Hon. Member for New Juaben North, Mr. Hackman Owusu-Agyemang.
Mr. Speaker, what we are about to do is unprecedented in this Republic and I crave our indulgence that this is what democracy is all about. And I am very happy to see that today we have the privilege of so many Ministers in the House, something that we have been advocating for for a long while, Mr. Speaker. {interruptions.}
*Mr. Speaker: Order! May I remind hon. Members of the advice that I gave a few minutes ago, that this is a very important motion. Let us hear the arguments, please, in relative silence. Hon. Hackman Owusu-Agyemang to continue.
*Mr. Owusu-Agyemang: Mr. Speaker, we on this side are convinced that there was a misinterpretation of the original motion, hence the present one to ask for a review. The original urgent motion in itself was a substantive one. It sought to elicit a decision by this House to set up a board of enquiry as per article 278 (1) (c) of our Constitution. It was a self-contained proposal and this is confirmed, Mr. Speaker, by Erskine May, Parliamentary Procedure, 21st Edition. The original motion by which we are now requesting that this august House urges you to – {interruption.}
*Mr. A.S.K. Bagbin: On a point of order! Mr. Speaker, I think that the mover of the motion is not properly before us and I believe that if he wants us to come to a decision as to whether to review your ruling or to go by his stand, we need, before he moves the motion, copies of your ruling and his submission to you. Now he is trying to refer to his earlier submissions to you which led to your decision. But we do not have copies of that earlier submission; and I think therefore he has not come properly before us and we cannot hear him today. {hear, hear!}
*Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, my ruling was not only delivered to the mover of the original motion, it was read before the House and copies were made available to the Leadership on both sides of the House. Secondly, I have admitted this motion for review and the House did fix today as the day for it to be heard. So I fail to see the point of your intervention.
*Mr. Bagbin: Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about your ruling; I am talking about his submission to you. And I am not saying that we are not admitting it for debate, but we are to take the decision now whether to review it or not and I thought the proper thing for him to have done was to have made those documents available to us for us to be well informed before he comes to move. At least, from experience this is that I know about review.
*Mr. Speaker: Hon. Member, this is not a court of law. I left the Bench many many years ago. You are still at the Bar; I am not on the Bench. As far as I am concerned, all they needed to do was to file this motion for a review and they need not have submitted any detailed statement of the argument. Hon. Hackman Owusu-Agyemang continues.
*Mr. Owusu-Agyemang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the original motion which we are now requesting this august House to urge you to admit only sought to establish a board of enquiry into the allegation by several newspapers and on the Internet that our President was paid a sum of $5 million by the government of the late Sani Abacha, the former Head of State of Nigeria. Mr. Speaker, whether all the radio and newspaper reports and the Internet had one source or not, I respectfully submit; is not the issue. The fact is that the allegation have been given the widest dissemination and all that the original motion asked for was to eventually determine the veracity or otherwise of the allegations. {interruption.}
*Mr. T.K. Aubyn: On a point of order! Mr. Speaker, we on this side have a great difficulty. If you look at our Standing Orders, Order 93(5), it states clearly that – {interruptions}
*Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
*Mr. Aubyn: Mr. Speaker, Order 93(5) says and with the permission of the Speaker, if I may read:
“The conduct of Mr. Speaker, Members, the Chief Justice and Judges of the Superior Court of Judicature shall not be raised except upon a substantive motion –”
*Mr. Speaker: Hon. Member, my conduct is not in issue here. It is my ruling which is in issue, not my conduct. Conduct is different in the context in which it was used.
*Mr. Aubyn: Mr. Speaker, the point I want to drive at is that the conduct of the President is in question. Mr. Speaker, if we cannot even question the conduct of the Speaker or Member of Parliament except upon a substantive motion, how do we then question the conduct of the President in a motion that is not substantive?
*Mr. Speaker: Hon. Member, let us not pursue this point. The original motion was a substantive motion and I refused to admit it for grounds which I stated. They now want me to review or ask you to urge me to review that ruling. So there was a substantive motion, to begin with; and what is before us now is another substantive motion.
*Mr. Bagbin: Mr. Speaker, I clearly want to be guided by your ruling. Mr. Speaker, he is referring to a motion he has submitted before you. The first point I raised was to the extent that we should be made aware of the content of that motion, because now if he is referring to something different, how can we tell that it is that motion that was before you. And that is why, before you go on to move for review, you should let the people know that this was the matter that really went to the person who made the decision. So that if the person, on those facts or law, made a decision that you are questioning, then we would also have the same facts and law to assist us to decide whether your decision was wrong or correct. Now, if he is referring to something else which we are not sure is the original motion, it could be an amendment to the original motion that went before you; if we are now influenced by a different thing, we would take a different decision. But Mr. Speaker, I think and I believe strongly that the correct procedure is that we should have copies of the original motion so that we are well informed about what really went before you, before we decide to review your decision. That is my view. {interruption.}
4.10 p.m.
*Mr. Speaker: Hon. Member, I quite understand you but that motion was read before this House. it is part of the Hansard.
*Mr. Bagbin: Mr. Speaker, your ruling was read.
*Mr. Speaker: He argued the motion before I pronounced the ruling. The ruling was preceded by the motion. He referred to the motion when he was making his submission. It was read out. {interruption.} The motion was read out. It is part of the records of this House. Hon. Members, in any case we all know what the motion is about. Please, let us get on with the substantive matter. Hon. Hackman Owusu-Agyeman to continue.
*Mr. Owusu-Agyeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the original motion which you disallowed, if it is necessary, I will read it, with your permission:
“That this House views with concern the recent allegations in the press and media of improper payments to the President by the Government of the Late Gen. Sani Abacha of Nigeria, which allegations have found their way onto the Internet and the International Press. That considering the seriousness of the allegations which seek to bring the high office of the President into disrepute, this House takes steps to safeguard the integrity of the Presidency and the image of the country by requesting the Government to set up a high-powered independent board of enquiry to determine the veracity or otherwise of the allegations.”
This was the original motion that I submitted. Mr. Speaker – {interruptions.}
Several Members – rose –
*Mr. Speaker: Order, order! Hon. Members, I have the signed motion before me – {Some hon. Members: “we do not have.”} - Order, order! In delivering my ruling I read out this motion in full; and I have it before me. So it is part of the record of the House. The content of the motion is part of the record of the House. I read it out in full; and I have it before me. The point you are trying to make is that the motion itself was not before the House, yes; because it was dismissed by me in chambers. So it was not laid before the House, but I read out the full motion when I delivered my ruling. I read it out; and I read it into the record of the House; so it is part of the record of the House. And it is before me now, signed, I have it.
*Mr. J.H. Owusu-Acheampong: On a point of order! Mr. Speaker, the matter before us is clear. Mr. Speaker, last week you made a ruling and your ruling is being challenged now by a substantive motion. I think it must be made clear to the House that the motion that we are discussing now is the substantive motion asking for review of your decision. And therefore there should be no references whatsoever to the motion that was rejected by you. And this is what my hon. Colleague is seeking to do. Mr. Speaker, my hon. Colleague is trying very hard to smuggle into this debate a matter that has already been rejected by you. This is the position and I think that it must be made clear to the House, that we are debating a motion asking for a review of that ruling and not the substantive motion that was rejected by you. He is bringing the substantive motion that was rejected by you; and I think it is a wrong procedure.
*Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, what is before us now is not the original motion but a motion for review; and that is quite clear. It is a motion to review the ruling I made on a substantive motion. So we may not re-debate the substantive motion. The debate would be limited to whether or not I should review my ruling.
*Mr. Edward Osei-Kwaku: Mr. Speaker, all that hon. Owusu-Agyemang is trying to do is to lay what we call a foundation – {Some hon. Members: {“No, no.”}
*Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
*Mr. Osei-Kwaku: Mr. Speaker, for the information – {interruptions.}
*Mr. Speaker: Order, order! Hon. Members, let us hear the arguments. We should not run away from good arguments. Let us hear the arguments.
*Mr. Osei-Kwaku: Mr. Speaker, all that hon. Owusu-Agyemang is trying to do is to lay a foundation after which he would proceed and request you to review the ruling you made. Mr. Speaker, this is normal practice in any forum where such debates are conducted.
*Dr. Kwabena Adjei: Mr. Speaker, this House is a responsible House and all Members of this House are familiar with our Standing Orders. If one wishes to lay foundation for a motion that must be laid before the Speaker, one does not come - {interruption} – Yes. {Some hon. Members: “No, no.”} – yes, one must lay it before the Speaker, not here. {uproar.}
*Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
*Dr. Kwabena Adjei: If a motion has been laid, which has been rendered inadmissible on account of paucity of material, then the proponents of that motion would have to go and find sufficient information to re-lay the motion. Mr. Speaker, this House should not be used as a platform for laying foundation for a motion that has not been admitted – {interruptions.}
*Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, this is getting out of hand. I may have to rise; and when the Speaker rises and stands, then there would be trouble – trouble for troublemakers. {laughter.}
*Dr. Obed Asamoah: Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that we are losing sight of the ruling you just made. I think the position is this, that when you made your ruling on the admissibility of the motion by the hon. Member, you read out the motion. And this is what you are telling us today. Having read it out, we are all aware of it. And it is on the basis of what you read out that you made the ruling. Mr. Speaker, it is therefore no longer necessary for the hon. Member to refer to the motion, to read it out again. {interruption.} Yes. Because the Speaker’s ruling is this, that that motion by virtue of his ruling originally is part of the record; and we are all presumed to know about it. Now, to go back and read that motion again is just an attempt to argue through the back door the motion that was not admitted.
*Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, we should guard against re-arguing the substantive motion, the original motion; I am not going to allow that. We are here to look at the issue whether the House should urge the Speaker to review his ruling. And I will not admit any tactics which will bring in by the back door, matters which we have already disposed of. So I will urge all hon. Members to stick closely to the purpose of the motion that is now before the House. Hon. Owusu-Agyemang has the floor. {interruptions.}
*Mr. Speaker: Order, order! Let us have some order in the House.
*Mr. J.H. Mensah: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of these proceedings – {interruptions.}
*Mr. Speaker: Order, order! Hon. Members, these interruptions will not do.
*Mr. J.H. Mensah: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of these proceedings, you urged hon. Members to let us hear the arguments in silence. Mr. Speaker, I would like to urge very much that, we have a lot of work to do and very little time on our hands. Any filibustering or any undue interference will only drag us all into the night. Mr. Speaker, you have allotted some time for this motion and I pray that my hon. Friends on all sides will hear the arguments in silence and let us take a decision in a reasonably quick time. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to Members to keep quite and hear the arguments in silence, as you instructed. Thank you very much. (To Be Continued)
<<Print>>