Bagbin Jabs Akufo-Addo Over ‘Myopic, Unfortunate’ Comment On Supreme Court Ruling On Deputy Speakers

Bagbin Jabs Akufo-Addo Over ‘Myopic, Unfortunate’ Comment On Supreme Court Ruling On Deputy Speakers

  • Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin has jabbed President Akufo-Addo for his comments on the Supreme Court ruling allowing deputy speakers to vote while presiding
  • The Speaker said the President's comment yesterday was not only myopic, but it was also unfortunate
  • He has asked the petitioner who took the matter to the Supreme Court to seek judicial review of the controversial ruling.

PAY ATTENTION: Click “See First” under the “Following” tab to see YEN.com.gh News on your News Feed!

Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin has jabbed President Nana Akufo-Addo over his comment on the Supreme Court ruling that allows deputy speakers to vote while presiding in Parliament as “myopic and unfortunate”.

In a statement that YEN.com.gh has sighted on the website of pro-opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC) media organisation Woezor TV, the Speaker said the Supreme Court decision on Wednesday was absurd and reckless interference in the affairs of Parliament.

Read also

‘No arm of government is above the law’ – Akufo-Addo backs Supreme Court decision on deputy speakers

Akufo-Addo and Bagbin
Speaker, Alban Bagbin (R), has said Nana Akufo-Addo's comment on the ruling is unfortunate. Source: Facebook/@Parliament.of.Ghana, @nakufoaddo
Source: Facebook
“I have resisted the temptation of making a comment on the judgment of the Supreme Court on the issue of the voting rights of Deputy Speakers when presiding. But the unfortunate and myopic comment of the President has compelled me to let it out.
“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,” portions of the statement that is already trending said forcefully.

Download YEN's news app on Google Play now and stay up-to-date with all major Ghana news

President Akufo-Addo had said on the sidelines of 2020 Dubai Expo on Thursday, March 10, 2022 that the Supreme Court decision on the voting rights of deputy speakers cannot amount to judicial inference in the work of Parliament.

He also said the claim by some Members of Parliament and legal practitioners that Parliament is beyond the scrutiny of the Supreme Court is to suggest that Parliament is a law onto itself.

Read also

Supreme Court decision on deputy speakers: Prof Gyampo proposes review of ruling

“I’m not sure people who are saying this have actually taken the time to read the Constitution of our country. It says so in black and white. The legislative powers of the state, which is vested in parliament, is subject to the provisions of the Constitution. All organs of the Ghanaian State, including me, as the Head of the Executive, we are all subject to the teachings of the Constitution,” the President said.

But the Speaker’s statement said to have been released on Friday, March 11, 2022 flatly disagreed with the President.

“Mr President, the issue being discussed is not about Parliament being above the law. Everyone knows that Parliament is not above the law. The Executive and the Judiciary are equally not above the law. The issue being discussed is the political question doctrine. It took centuries to detail out the strands of this doctrine and the principles are settled as to when and how this closed book could be opened,” Alban Bagin pointed out.

Read also

Prof Asare lays bare errors in Supreme Court decision that deputy speakers can vote while presiding

Ghana’s Supreme Court has ruled that a deputy speaker, while presiding over proceedings in Parliament, has the right to vote on matters and be counted as part of the quorum for decision-making in the House.

A seven-member Supreme Court bench ruled unanimously that upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 103 and 104 of the 1992 Constitution, a deputy speaker who assumes the temporary role as Speaker of Parliament does not lose his right to take part in decisions.

The court gave the decision after it dismissed a writ by a law lecturer, Justice Abdulai, who was challenging the decision of Mr Owusu to be counted as part of the quorum to pass the budget.

The unanimous decision was given by Justices Jones Dotse, Nene Amegather, Prof Ashie Kotey, Mariama Owusu, Lovelace Johnson, Clemence Honyenuga and Yonny Kulendi," Daily Graphic reports.

The Speaker also urged the lecturer who took the matter to the Supreme Court to seek judicial review.

Read also

Mahama criticises Supreme Court ruling that deputy speakers’ can vote while presiding

Prof Asare ‘Schools’ Supreme Court Judges After Ruling That Allows Deputy Speakers To Vote While Presiding

Prof Stephen Asare has published a didactic opinion on the contentious decision by the Supreme Court yesterday that deputy speakers presiding in Parliament do not lose their right to vote.

The respected US-based private legal practitioner is of the opinion that the law and custom or standing orders of Parliament is a distinct body of law and should not be interfered with by the court.

“Parliament and the Courts are coequal branches of government and neither can tell the other how to run its affairs,” he published on Facebook a few hours after the controversial ruling on Wednesday, March 9, 2022.

Prof Gyampo Proposes Review Of Supreme Court Decision On Deputy Speakers’ Vote To End Controversy

Prof Ransford Gyampo, a senior political science lecturer has called for a review of the ruling on the right of deputy speakers to vote while presiding in Parliament.

Read also

Supreme Court decision that Joe Wise can vote while presiding riles Minority

The Supreme Court stoked controversy when a seven-member panel of judges decided that deputy speakers temporarily acting as Speakers of Parliament do not lose their right to be counted as part of the quorum for decision-making in the House.

The political science professor said that while the apex court has not erred by ruling on a matter that was brought before it, a review of that ruling has become necessary.

Source: YEN.com.gh

Online view pixel