Court gave a unanimous verdict, Bagbin’s ego bruised - Sulley Sumbian on Dep. Speakers voting

Bagbin urges petitioner to file for review

Supreme Court decides Joe Wise can vote while presiding

Court strikes out private legal practitioner writ

Secretary of the New Patriotic Party in the North-East Region, Sulley Sambian, has said that Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin’s ego has been bruised following the verdict

Read full articleof the Supreme Court in the ruling that the Deputy Speakers can vote while presiding.

According to him, the Speaker should take some time to reflect on the ruling he rendered on the issue of quorum.

“...the fact that it is a unanimous verdict of the court admittedly should bruise the Speaker’s ego, but that should equally give him some time to reflect on the ruling he rendered on the issue of quorum,” he said.

In a Facebook post, he also wondered why the Speaker will descend on Akufo-Addo for expressing his mind on the subject.

“So why the Speaker would descend on the president for expressing an opinion on the verdict frankly beats my mind, and can only smack of intolerance of divergent opinions by the speaker, a creeping impression he must not allow to fester and gain roots,” he added.

Sulley Sumbian's comments come on the back of the Speaker's reactions following the Supreme Court's ruling that a Deputy Speaker of Parliament presiding over proceedings in Parliament has the right to be counted in decision making and has the right to participate in voting.

The Speaker in a Facebook post advised Justice Abdulai, the petitioner who requested for the determination of the voting rights of Deputy Speakers to file for a review after a Supreme Court ruling. “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. Please, I encourage the Plaintiff to go for a review of the Supreme Court ruling,” Bagbin wrote.

However, Legal Practitioner, Sulley Sumbian has reacted to the Speaker’s comment.

TWI NEWS

Below is his Facebook post The law as I have often understood it to be, and within the context of the issue at hand is that, the question of quorum is a question of law. I have also understood the legal principle that it is the duty of the court to say what the law is.

Indeed, the Supreme Court of the USA since 1803, in the celebrated case of MARBURY V. MADISON had this to say about the duty of the court:

“It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department (the supreme court in this context) to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other the court must decide on the operation of each”

Let me just leave the Supreme Court of the USA out of this and look at the conduct of the Rt. Hon. Speaker.

Granted the president wasn’t even president, I think one person who has been widely reported on landmark constitutional law cases is Nana Addo. Those who have sat in constitutional law classes will not argue about this. The other day Paul Adom Otchere mentioned just two of such cases.

So why the Speaker would descend on the president for expressing an opinion on the verdict frankly beats my mind, and can only smack of intolerance of divergent opinions by the speaker, a creeping impression he must not allow to fester and gain roots

Again, the fact that it is a unanimous verdict of the court admittedly should bruise the speaker’s ego, but that should equally give him some time to reflect on the ruling he rendered on the issue of quorum.

I also have a fair understanding of the political doctrine question espoused in quite a number of cases in the USA. I think the call for the Supreme Court of Ghana to consider the issue of quorum was a call in the right direction. The 8th parliament is an almost split one. The need for interpretation of Articles 102 and 104 came at the right time. At least we would not be experiencing the ugly scenes and fisticuffs in parliament on the interpretation of these articles when Speaker travels to Dubai in the future ????

Please tolerate my “nonsense”. It’s done in good faith sir.

A word to a wise speaker…