Supreme Court ruling has given judicial blessing to chaos in Parliament – Defeamekpor

Supreme Court ruing logically, legally, and jurisprudentially wrong

Apex Court rules that Deputy Speakers can vote

Court strikes out portions of Parliament's Standing Orders

Member of Parliament for South Dayi, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, has said the Supreme Court ruling that allows Deputy Speakers to vote while presiding has given judicial blessing

Read full articleto chaos in Parliament.

According to him, the judges got it logically and legally wrong in their ruling as voting rights per Ghana’s constitution, does not reside in the speakership unlike that of Westminster system.

Explaining his comment on Joy News, he questioned how Parliament’s Standing Orders on voting and speaking rights of the Speaker, translates to the deprivation of their rights. He believes the ruling was logically incorrect fears it may give room for chaos in Parliament.

“The Supreme Court, as it were, has given a judicial blessing to chaos in Parliament. I will explain - this country chose for itself a certain parliamentary democracy, we didn’t choose the Westminster type of democracy where voting rights resides in the speakership.

"One other thing I think the Supreme Court got wrong is that, they got the reasoning logically wrong because when we speak of the speakership it is not about one person, it’s an office and there are occupants, there is a prefect and there are two deputies. So, we have a Speaker and two deputy Speakers.

"And so, by our own constitutional design and architecture, voting rights do not reside in the speakership. So, when you ascend from an ordinary level of Member of Parliament to become a Speaker or a presiding over proceedings in parliament, you don’t have voting rights,” he said.

“It is the same principle that we converted into our Standing Orders and that is why as part of our rules of debate under Order 90, the Speaker has no right to participate in the debate on the floor of parliament.

"Parliament is a deliberative forum (where) you must have your say, sometimes we just deliberate without voting on the matter. So, if as a Speaker you don’t have voting rights or speaking rights in terms of the matters on the floor, how can a Supreme Court interpret it to mean deprivation of the right to speak and to vote.

"So, they got the thinking logically wrong, they got it legally wrong and jurisprudentially wrong…..You cannot be ascribing voting rights to occupants of the office of the speakership when the Constitution says no,” he added.

There have been a lot of reactions from both Minority and Majority members, after the court ruled that Deputy Speakers could vote and form a quorum while presiding.

On March 9, 2022, the Supreme Court ruled 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 court presided over by Justice Jones Dotse held that, the Deputy Speaker does not lose his right to take part in decision-making upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 103 and 104 of the 1992 Constitution.

The unanimous decision was taken after the court dismissed a writ by a law lecturer, Justice Abdulai, who was challenging the decision of First Deputy Speaker, Joseph Osei-Owusu to be counted as part of the quorum to pass the budget last year.