Supreme Court not responsible for ‘quorum’ issues in Parliament, blame MP absenteeism – Kweku Baako

Minority 'block' approval of government business over lack of quorum

Majority caucus accuse NDC MPs of frustrating government business

Supreme Court rules Deputy Speakers can vote whiles presiding

Editor in Chief of the New Crusading Guide newspaper, Abdul Malik Kweku Baako, has reacted to the recent stalemate of government business in

Read full articletarget='_blank' href='/GhanaHomePage/people/person.php?ID=3205'>Parliament over the lack of quorum to proceed with sittings.

According to him, the March 9 Supreme Court ruling is not to be blamed for the failure to attain quorum formation as usually raised by Members of Parliament particularly those with the Minority caucus.

Citing a 2018 Hansard in which Ningo Prampram MP Sam Nartey George, raised the issue of quorum and subsequent ruling by first deputy Speaker, Joseph Osei Owusu, Kweku Baako argued that Parliament had always had a way of dealing with quorum formation whenever it was raised.

He stressed therefore that the Supreme Court must be absolved from blame over recent stalled government business in Parliament.

Kweku Baako mentioned that attention should rather be given to addressing the issue of MP absenteeism.

This he believes will be a panacea to the recent impasse.

TWI NEWS

“…it is obvious that the recent Supreme Court judgment is not and cannot be the source of the recent spate of lack of quorum in the House and the attendant/accompanying adjournments, suspensions or deferments of Government Business and/or Decision- making by Parliament!

“The focus should rather be on the sub-culture of perennial "MPs Abenseteeism" and the apparent lack of Discipline on the part of many of our legislators over the years! With the exception of the ruling that a presiding Deputy Speaker is qualified to vote and the declaration of Standing Order 109(3) as UNCONSTITUTIONAL as well as the re-affirmation of the sanctity of Article 104(1) which effectively nullified the purported rejection of Budget 2022 by the Minority Side of the House, what adverse impact has the 9th. March, 2022 Supreme Court judgment had on the workings of the Legislature?” Kweku Baako quizzed.

The minority MPs have been very particular about quorum formation in Parliament post the Supreme Court ruling on March 9.

They maintain that they are enforcing the ruling to the latter even though previously government business went on smoothly without issues of quorum being raised.

The Minority on two occasions raised the issue of a quorum to ‘block’ the approval of €20m loan agreement between Ghana and Germany.

They had earlier on “blocked” a €38m loan to construct five district hospitals stating that Parliament on the day did not have the requisite number of MPs to proceed with government business.

Read Below The Full Post By Kweku Baako

FROM THE HOUSE OF RECORDS(4)

....How Parliament Had Been Curing The 'Mischief Of Lack Of Quorum" Prior To The 9th. March, 2022 Supreme Court Judgment.

....Excerpts From The 9th. November, 2018 Hansard.

*Mr. Samuel Nartey George: " Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

* " Mr. Speaker, respectfully, I would want to draw your attention and that of the House to Standing Order 48(1) and (2).

* " Mr. Speaker, looking through this Chamber, I would want to say that Mr. Speaker has been at pain to demand that Hon Members of Parliament take their jobs seriously and do their jobs with dispatch.

* " Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 48(1) says, and with your permission I beg to quote:
" The presence of at least one-third of all Members of Parliament besides the person presiding shall be necessary to constitute a quorum of the House".

* " Mr. Speaker, a quorum consists of ninety-one Hon Members, but currently, we have just about fourty-two Hon Members in the Chamber. The Standing Order also states that there should be this quorom at the commencement of Sitting. So I humbly draw your attention for us to do the needful".

* Alhaji Mohammed Mubarak Muntaka:
"Mr. Speaker, I must admit that this is very embarrassing for all of us. We are elected to be in the House by 10am and when we started this Meeting, we reiterated that 10am would mean 10am but now at 11am we cannot secure the number to conduct Business. I think this is a serious concern and we should just take it beyond calling for the quorum.

* "Yes our Standing Orders do not make any provision for the Hon Majoirity and Miniority Chief Whips to be able to do anything to any Hon Member who chooses not to come at 10am or decides not to even come at all.

* "I believe that as a matter of ethics, all of us need to take this very seriously. This is because it portrays the House in a very bad light to the general public. If we are leaders of this country, elected from various constituencies- we are not even supposed to work.

* "If one decides to do anything, one has to go through Mr. Speaker's Committee to justify why he or she should be allowed to continue to hold other businesses that could give some profit. Yet, when we come to the House of 275 Hon Members, you cannot even find 100 Hon Members to start Business.

* "I believe it is something that all of us need to be ashamed of and find a way of dealing with it so that this issue of quorum would even not arise if we all take what we do seriously.

* "Mr. Speaker, I can see the Hon Minister for the Interior here and I can see the Hon Minister for Defence here, too. I do not want anybody to tell me that he or she is busier than these Hon Ministers, who have found time to be in the Chamber at 10am.

* " So, whether you are on the Miniority Side or the Majority Side- Yes, I can see the Hon Minister for Tourism, Arts and Culture here and also the Hon Deputy Minister for Defence and so many others are also here. One cannot find any reason to say that because one is on the Miniority Side or an Hon Minister, one cannot be in the Chamber at 10am.

* " Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a serious matter, but once a quorum has been raised, my humble suggestion is that let us allow- IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE, IT IS A STANDING ORDER ISSUE, SO WE SHOULD ALLOW THE 10 MINUTES TO RUN SO THAT THE BELL WOULD BE RUNG AND WE SEE; BY THE EXPIRATION OF THE 10 MINUTES IF WE HAVE THE NUMBER TO CONTINUE THEN WE WOULD CONTINUE.

* " If not Mr. Speaker, I would entreat you to do what the Standing Orders ask you do so that the rest of us who have chosen not to be here would know that THEY ARE THE CAUSE OF WASTE OF PUBLIC FUNDS TODAY. LIGHTS AND AIR CONDITIONERS HAVE BEEN SWITCHED ON, YET WE COULD NOT WORK.

* " Mr. Speaker, I think that we should allow the time to run and also those Hon Members who are in Committee sittings- Mr. Speaker, WE HAVE A GENTLEMAN's AGREEMENT IN THIS HOUSE THAT COMMITTEES WOULD NOT SIT UNTIL 2 O'CLOCK.

*I would like to reiterate to Hon Committee Chairpersons and Hon Ranking Members to please stop holding Committee meetings before 2 o' clock, because they are also contributing to the worsening situation in the Chamber.

* " When you choose to go and have a meeting- when I look around now, I am told that the Special Budget Committee is meeting and that Committee is chaired by the Hon Majority Leader. I am also told that the Trade and Tourism Committee is also meeting. If they stop the meetings that would improve the numbers here.

*Mr. Speaker, let us allow the 10 minutes to run while we make effort to call those who are sitting in the offices and those at the Committee sittings to come and join us so that we could continue to run the Business of the House.

* " Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker".

* RULING BY THE FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER TO THE ISSUE OF LACK OF QUORUM RAISED BY MR. SAMUEL NARTEY GEORGE AFTER THE SUBMISSIONS/INTERVENTIONS BY MUBARAK MUNTAKA & OTHERS.

* FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER(JOE OSEI-OWUSU:
" The application was made to me under Standing Order 48. Subsequently, an Hon Member introduced article 102 of the Constitution.

" Article 102 gives the quorum but Standing Order 48 regulates how to determine or prepare if you want to ensure that quorum is applied, the requirements that we have a quorum. So far, I have not heard anything that persuades me not to apply Standing Order 48.

" Order 48(2) states : " If at the time of sitting a Member takes notice or objection that there are present in the House, besides the person presiding, less than one-third of the number of all Members of Parliament and after an interval of ten minutes a quorum is not present, the person presiding shall adjourn the House without Question put until the next sitting day".

* " SO I DIRECT THAT THE BELL BE RUNG AND AFTER TEN MINUTES IF THE QUORUM IS STILL NOT OBTAINED, WE WOULD TAKE THE NEXT STEP....."

* Me: The above recollection underscores the fact that even prior to the 9th. March, 2022 Supreme Court ruling, Parliament had had the means and capacity to deal with the issue of lack of quorum whenever it was raised by a Member of the House.

* Indeed, there is an abundance of examples from the records of the House, showing that anytime the issue of lack of quorum had been raised on the floor of the House or in the Chamber, the appropriate or relevant Constitutional Provisions and Standing Orders had been activated/applied to deal with the situation. SAME AS IS HAPPENING TODAY!

*My research is yet to discover or uncover an instance where and when Articles 102 and 104(1) of the Constitution and Standing Order 48 (1) and (2) had been blatantly set aside or ignored by any Speaker or presiding First and Second Deputy Speakers , when the issue of lack of quorum was raised by a Member of Parliament on the floor of the House or in the Chamber.

* It would be recalled that Speaker Bagbin, in his 16th December, 2021 "Formal Communication" to Parliament, alluded to many instances of lack of quorum which had led to adjournment or suspension of Sittings of the House since the inception of the Parliament of the 4th. Republic.

* Minus the few "factual inaccuracies" and "misjudgments" inherent in that famous "Formal Communication", what Speaker Bagbin sought to underscore was that " ...the issue of lack of quorum is usually raised by an Hon Member of the House or the Speaker himself, having regard to the numbers in the House, may ask for an ADJOURNMENT. USUALLY, AT THE BEGINNING, IT IS FOR AN ADJOURNMENT BUT DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS, THE SPEAKER COULD SUSPEND THE SITTING DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM" (See Speaker Bagbin's 16th. December, 2021 "Formal Communication" to Parliament).

*Against this historical backdrop, it is obvious that the recent Supreme Court judgment is not and cannot be the source of the recent spate of lack of quorum in the House and the attendant/accompanying adjournments, suspensions or deferments of Government Business and/or Decision- making by Parliament!

* The focus should rather be on the sub-culture of perennial "MPs Abenseteeism" and the apparent lack of Discipline on the part of many of our legislators over the years! With the exception of the ruling that a presiding Deputy Speaker is qualified to vote and the declaration of Standing Order 109(3) as UNCONSTITUTIONAL as well as the re-affirmation of the sanctity of Article 104(1) which effectively nullified the purported rejection of Budget 2022 by the Miniority Side of the House, what adverse impact has the 9th. March, 2022 Supreme Court judgment had on the workings of the Legislature?

*After all, Article 110 which ensures that Parliament is a "master of its own procedures" is still intact. All the Supreme Court said was/is that the rules of procedures and/or Standing Orders of the House must be in compliance with the Fundamental Law of the Land (The CONSTITUTION) otherwise, they are null and void! Simpliciter!!

*PS: The Standing Orders of THIS HOUSE have not been amended. They remain intact!
* Stay tuned.....