Former President John Mahama has slammed a Supreme Court decision that a Deputy Speaker presiding over proceedings in Parliament has the right to vote on issues and is also counted as part of the quorum for decision making in Parliament.
H.E Mahama described the unanimous ruling as “shocking but not surprising” in a post shared across his official social media handles.
He went on to say that the decision had established “a dangerous precedent of judicial interference in Parliamentary procedure for the future.”
The decision came after the court dismissed a writ filed by a law lecturer, Justice Abdulai, who was challenging Mr. Owusu’s decision to be counted as part of the quorum to pass the budget.
Justices Jones Dotse, Nene Amegather, Prof Ashie Kotey, Mariama Owusu, Lovelace Johnson, Clemence Honyenuga, and Yonny Kulendi rendered a unanimous decision.
The court did not provide reasons for its decision but stated that they would be filed at the Court’s registry by Friday [March 11, 2022].
According to the plaintiff, the 1992 Constitution prohibits a person presiding over proceedings in Parliament from having an original or casting vote or being part of a quorum.
He relies on Article 102 of the 1992 Constitution, which states that “a quorum of Parliament, apart from the person presiding, shall be one-third of all Members of Parliament,” and Article 104 (1), which states 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 refers to Article 104 (2) of the 1992 Constitution, which states that “the Speaker shall have neither the original nor the casting vote.”
According to Mr. Abdulai, when presiding, the First and Second Deputy Speakers of Parliament have the “same authority and mandate as the Right Honourable Speaker” and thus cannot vote or be part of the quorum.
The case of A-G
The A-G disagreed with the plaintiff, arguing that the quorum formed in Parliament under Article 102 differs from the quorum formed under Article 104 of the 1992 Constitution.
In Mr. Dame’s case, the quorum under Article 102 is for the conduct of business in Parliament, which is why Article 102 specifies that it should be one-third of the members.
“Given that Parliament currently has 275 members, the quorum under Article 102 for the conduct of business is met.”
According to the A-G, any person presiding, whether the Speaker or Deputy Speakers, is barred from being a part of that quorum under Article 102.
The A-G, on the other hand, believes that the quorum required by Article 104 (1), which deals with determining matters through voting in Parliament, requires at least half of all MPs, and that this quorum is not the same as the one in Article 102.
Mr. Dame contends that, unlike Article 102, which prohibits a “person presiding” from being a member of the quorum, Article 104 (2) expressly prohibits “The Speaker” from being a member of the quorum.
As a result, the A-G maintains that only the person elected as “The Speaker” of Parliament is prohibited from being a member of Parliament.
