Supreme Court judgement on ‘presiding speaker’ confusion absurd and reckless – Bagbin

The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Babgin, has described as absurd and reckless the recent judgement of the Supreme Court that insists that a deputy speaker of parliament or any legislator presiding over a sitting can vote on a matter in parliament.

According to him, the fact that all members of the panel agreed with the position is worrying as the decision constitutes an interference in the activities of the legislature.

In a statement issued days after the landmark judgement, Alban Bagbin, who has earlier indicated that a speaker presiding does not have a casting vote said the court’s position on the matter “doesn’t help explore and expand our legal jurisprudence.”

“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,” he stated.

‘Akufo-Addo’s view myopic’

Since the judgement, many influential personalities have expressed their views on the matter including President Akufo-Addo.

The President in a statement on Thursday rubbished claims that the Supreme Court had no powers to pronounce judgement on such an issue that concerns parliament, insisting that “All organs of the state including me [President Akufo-Addo], as the head of the executive, are subject to the constitution. There is nobody or organ in the Ghanaian state that is above the laws of the land. To suggest that Parliament should operate without interference is to advocate for the very matter we have tried to avoid, the concentration of power. We have had that experience before and don’t want that.”

He also said the judgement of the court was accurate.

But Alban Bagbin has expressed disappointment in the position of the president.

He described the president’s view on the matter as “myopic”.

Mr. Bagbin said the comments of Akufo-Addo further worsen the friction between the legislative arm of government and the Executive body.

“The President’s comment is myopic and unfortunately. It only goes to worsen the schism between the Executive and Parliament. The impartiality of the Speaker, Deputy Speaker or Presiding Officer has been treasured and fought for by this country throughout our democratic development,” he stated.

“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 added while urging the Plaintiff, Justice Abdullai, to seek a review of the court’s decision