You’re not fair to me – Joe Wise rejects Bagbin’s warning

You’re not fair to me – Joe Wise rejects Bagbin’s warning

The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin’s caution to Joseph Osei Owusu not to overturn his ruling on the again has not sat down well with the 1st Deputy Speaker as he says the Speaker’s comments are unreflective and unfair comments against him in the matter.

Alban Bagbin had cautioned Joe Wise about his penchant for dismissing decisions he[Bagbin] has taken deeming it illegal and offensive.

This issue stems from the instance where Joe Wise overruled an earlier decision taken by Mr Bagbin on the motion filed by the Minority that was seeking a probe into the Covid-19 spending.

It will be recalled that Mr Alban Bagbin had earlier on admitted the motion. But Joe Wise in his ruling on Tuesday, February 22 overturned the decision saying “All the committees of the house including the Public Accounts Committee are bipartisan, and the Public Accounts Committee is designed by nature to be chaired by members of the Minority”.

“In all its form,  the Public Accounts Committee, if it is minded to investigate anything related to the Covid-19 expenditure, fully sees to the authority and power to investigate that, particularly because all the accounting of it has been provided for in the budget which budget has been provided by the House and is before the committee.

“My view is that this motion ought not to have been admitted, and it’s improperly before the House.”

An angry Bagbin who complained that this is the second time Joe Wise is rubbishing his decisions said among other things in Parliament on Wednesday, February 23 that “The penchant of the 1st Deputy Speaker to overrule my ruling is, to say the least, unconstitutional, illegal and offensive. Be that as it may, I shall not be taking any steps to overrule the decision of the 1st Deputy Speaker to dismiss the motion as moved by the Honourable ranking member of the Finance Committee.”

Mr Bagbin further assured that the two of them will meet and find a way out in order to prevent this development from recurring.

But in a statement responding to the Speaker’s flak against him, Joe Wise said “On Wednesday, 23rd February, Mr. Speaker once again issued one such ‘formal’ communication by Mr Speaker. In the said formal communication, Mr Speaker purported to comment on the ‘error’ which, in his view, I committed when I permitted the Deputy Majority Leader to raise a preliminary objection to a motion Mr Speaker had earlier admitted and which was advertised on the Order Paper for the 23rd of February.

“Mr Speaker’s complaint is that I should not have allowed the motion to be moved after same had been seconded but rather I should have allowed it to be moved before the motion he had earlier admitted was seconded, I have read that Mr Speaker said that he had directed and actually instructed me, to allow the Deputy Leader to move his motion before it was seconded. Whilst I do not doubt Mr Speaker’s statement, I must confess that I heard otherwise and I indeed so ruled and stated that the objection be moved after secondment.

“But, Mr Speaker did not end it at pointing out my purported miscommunication or misapprehension of his “order” rather, he continued to comment on what he says has become the penchant of the honourable First Deputy Speaker to overrule my rulings is to say the least, unconstitutional, illegal and offensive.’

“This is where I find Mr Speaker’s ‘communication’ to the House most unfair and totally un-reflective of my conduct as the First Deputy Speaker in the 7th and 8th Parliament.

“Mr Speaker proceeded to cite as an example, my ruling on the motion by the Majority to declare the purported vote to reject the 2022 budget by 137 of the 275 Member House of Parliament as falling short of the number required to take a decision and therefore unconstitutional, null and void. In fact, in his statement from the Chair, subsequent to that ruling, he described my conduct as tantamount to insubordination.

“On that occasion, I characteristically elected not to comment on Mr Speaker’s statement in public in order not to create the impression that there’s tension between him and his Deputy.

“There is however no doubt that in putting the question when the record showed that there were less than half of all members of Parliament in the chamber Mr speaker had contravened Order 109(1)of the Standing Orders and more importantly Art 104(1) of the 1992 Constitution. The purported decision of the house was a nullity and I rightly so declared it.”

Join the discussion

%d bloggers like this: