Akufo-Addo’s comment on Dep. Speaker ruling ‘unfortunate and myopic’ – Bagbin

Source The Ghana Report

Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, has expressed his disappointment about President Akufo-Addo’s stance on the Supreme Court ruling on Deputy Speakers voting rights.

The former Nadowli West MP said he had resisted the temptation of commenting on the judgment of the Supreme Court, but the “unfortunate and myopic comment” of the president has compelled him to speak out.

He is convinced the president’s comment only worsens the schism between the Executive and Parliament.

Commenting on whether Parliament was above the law, Mr Bagbin explained that the issue being discussed is not about which organ is above the law or not, but rather the question of political doctrine.

“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,” he explained.

Mr Bagbin further advised the plaintiff, Justice Abdullai, to go for a review.


A private legal practitioner, Justice Abdullai, sought to challenge the constitutionality of the First Deputy Speaker, Joseph Osei-Owusu, in counting himself as an MP when he presided over the passage of the 2022 budget on 30 November 2021.

The suit was filed at a time when there seemed to be growing incoherence in the decisions of Speaker Alban Bagbin and his First Deputy, Joseph Osei-Owusu.

Justice Abdullai believes that the 1992 Constitution does not allow a person presiding over proceedings in Parliament to have a casting vote or to be part of a quorum. A casting vote is an extra vote given by a chairperson to decide an issue when the votes on each side are equal.

His argument is based on Article 102 of the 1992 Constitution, which provides that “a quorum of Parliament, apart from the person presiding, shall be one-third of all Members of Parliament.

Article 104 (1) also provides that matters in Parliament shall be determined by votes of majority members present and voting, with at least half of all members of Parliament present.

He also cites Article 104 (2) of the 1992 Constitution, which stipulates that: “The Speaker shall have neither original nor casting vote.”

It is the case of Mr Abdulai that the First or Second Deputy Speakers of Parliament, when presiding, have the “same authority and mandate just like the Right Honourable Speaker” and therefore cannot vote or be part of the quorum.

But the Attorney-General disagreed.

Godfred Yeboah Dame argued that the quorum in Parliament formed under Article 102 is different from the quorum formed under Article 104 of the 1992 Constitution.

It is the case of Mr Dame that the quorum under Article 102 is for the conduct of business in Parliament, and that is why Article 102 provides that it should be one-third of members.

“Given that Parliament presently is made up of 275 members, the quorum under Article 102 for the conduct of its business is 92 MPs,” the A-G submitted.

According to the A-G, based on the clear provision of Article 102, any person presiding, either the Speaker or Deputy Speakers, is precluded from being part of that quorum.

On the other hand, the A-G is of the view that the quorum under Article 104 (1), which deals with the determination of matters through voting in Parliament, requires at least half of all MPs, and such a quorum is not the same as the one in Article 102.

Mr Dame contends that unlike Article 102, which precludes a “person presiding” from being part of the quorum, Article 104 (2) specifically precludes “The Speaker”.

The A-G, therefore, holds the position that only the person elected as “The Speaker” of Parliament is barred from forming part of the quorum under Article 104 when presiding, and not the Deputy Speakers who preside over proceedings.

Supreme Court’s Ruling 

On 9 March, a seven-member panel sided with the arguments of the Attorney-General.

The panel chaired by Justice Dotse said the approval of the budget was valid, and the deputy speaker has a right to be counted.

The apex court also struck down order 109(3) of the standing orders of Parliament, which prevented a deputy speaker presiding from voting, as unconstitutional.

But Mr Bagbin has described as absurd and reckless the judgment of the Supreme Court.

“The Supreme Court’s decision, to say the least, is 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,” he added.

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

You might also like
Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.