I will file for a review of the Supreme Court ruling – Justice Abdulai
Following from most conversations last week regarding the voting rights of the Deputy Speakers of Parliament after the Supreme court ruling which got strong responses from the legislators, the Speaker of Parliament, Former President Mahama and President Akufo-Addo amidst calls for him to seek a review, the plaintiff, Mr Justice Abdulai has decided to go for a review.
His reason behind the decision is that the ruling on the interpretation of Articles 102 and 104 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana by the apex court of the country was not clear on the Deputy Speakers casting vote when the need arose on the floor of the House.
This situation emanates from the ruling of the Supreme court on Wednesday, March 9, 2022, that Deputy Speakers leading proceedings in Ghana’s legislature had the right to vote on matters and to be counted as part of the quorum for decision-making in Parliament.
Members of the Minority caucus in parliament, as well as the 2020 Presidential candidate of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Mr John Dramani Mahama were not enthused with the Supreme Court’s decision.
For Mr Mahama, the court’s decision flouted on the independence of the legislative arm of government which may, in turn, affect deliberations in the House.
Sharing his view on the ruling, Mr Abdulai, said: “This issue about the Deputy Speaker and the substantive Speaker being one, and the same, is something that I thought the Supreme Court should have made a firm pronouncement on.”
He reiterated that this should have been spelt out because both the Constitution and the Standing Orders of Parliament affirmed that whoever acted in the stead of the Speaker was still a substantive Speaker, and therefore, had no voting right.
“The Constitution says that whoever occupies a position (whether acting or Deputy) has the same powers and authorities as to the substantive one. The Standing Orders reaffirms this same position that the Deputy Speaker is the same or occupies the same position or function as the Speaker.”
“Because of this difficulty, I expected a firm pronouncement on those matters by the Supreme Court to put a finality to that part of it. A firm pronouncement would have put some level of clarity and finality to the disagreements that are presently ongoing.”
The plaintiff indicated that so many issues regarding the ruling encouraged him to go for the review, pointing out that though the issue of casting vote was not captured as part of the reliefs, he had filed an additional memorandum on the issues.
He stated that: “In their judgment, they felt (that) probably it wasn’t borne out of the reliefs that I was seeking, so they refused to grant it. That’s fair and part of the legal processes.”
His views were made known during a media engagement on Saturday regarding The Apex Court’s ruling.
Legislator for South Dayi, Mr Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, also added that the Court’s ruling, allowing Speakers to vote while presiding, was an attack on Parliament and its structures.
On the same issue, the MP for Akuapim South, Osei Bonsu Amoah, said; “If Parliament passes any law that contravenes the Constitution, the Supreme Court can always shoot it down.”
The ruling was given after private legal practitioner, Justice Abdulai, filed a case against the Attorney-General to seek interpretation to the First Deputy Speaker, Joseph Osei-Owusu’s decision to count himself during a vote to approve the 2022 budget.
