Who are you to say Mahama cannot criticize the Supreme Court decision? – Bawa Mogtari slams Gabby
An aide to former President Mahama, Joyce Bawah Mogtari has chastised a leading member of the New Patriotic Party, Gabby Otchere Darko for quizzing Mahama on why he had to criticize Justices of the Supreme Court though he[Mahama] has a low understanding of the law.
On a post on her Facebook page, she asked “Who is Gabby, in comparison to President Mr John Dramani Mahama?”
“And who says one must know the law to proffer an opinion, share a view or criticize rulings of the Supreme Court. Some students of the law and even lawyers lack a basic understanding of the Law; the fact that they are lawyers notwithstanding. The SC is not above criticism or scrutiny,” she added.
“The bedrock of every democracy is freedom of speech first and foremost. To say nobody should criticize an institution created for the people is within itself absurd. We should stop making a myth about these Judges; most of them were students at some point, had colleagues at the Bar before becoming judges.
Madam Mogtari shot down the response of President Akufo-Addo to the ruling saying Mahama’s response was more intelligent and cogent than the president’s own. She also reminded Gabby that the judges of the Supreme Court are mandated to protect the rights of the people in a democratic arena.
“They are mandated to defend and protect our rights in a democratic dispensation. In any case, who is Gabby, in comparison to President John Dramani Mahama? Did Mr Mahama not support his disagreement with the SC with more cogent, intelligent and practical constitutional arguments than President Akufo-Addo did in his poorly arranged no-question interview?
“John Mahama’s understanding of the law, parliamentary and governance experience, practical use of the law etc cannot be disrespected in any way, unless by persons steeped in arrogance, outright disrespect and despotic behaviour.”
Gabby had stated that Mr Mahama may be forgiven for his views regarding the Supreme Court ruling on the right of Deputy Speakers to vote while presiding in the House because his understating of the law is limited.
He further cited that the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin who is a legal practitioner cannot be forgiven for his utterances.
A post on his Twitter handle on Saturday, March 12 said “You may choose to forgive John Mahama because his elementary understanding of the law is small, going by his reactions to Supreme Court decisions – except ex-presidents are expected not to speak loosely against the 3 arms of Govt. But, what about lawyer Alban Bagbin?”
Speaker Bagbin was not at all enthused with the ruling the court gave about Deputy Speakers voting in Parliament while presiding in the House.
According to him, the ruling was not only “an absurdity but a reckless incursion into the remit of Parliament”.
“I have resisted the temptation of commenting 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.
Just before Mr Bagbin’s comment, former President John Mahama said the Supreme Court set a dangerous precedent of judicial interference in Parliamentary procedure following the ruling that a Deputy Speaker can vote in Parliament while presiding.
In a tweet, Mr Mahama said “A unanimous 7-0? Shocking but not surprising. An unfortunate interpretation for convenience that sets a dangerous precedent of judicial interference in Parliamentary procedure for the future.”
The Supreme court on Wednesday, March 9 dismissed an application to pronounce as unconstitutional, Joseph Osei-Owusu’s action of counting himself among the MPs present in order to form a quorum before the subsequent approval of the 2022 budget by a Majority-side only parliament after their Minority counterparts boycotted sitting that day.
