Justice Abdulai files for review of Supreme Court Deputy Speaker ruling
Private legal practitioner, Justice Abdulai, has filed for a review of the Supreme Court ruling that said a Deputy Speaker can vote while presiding in the Speaker’s absence.
The apex court ruling affirmed the position of the First Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Joseph Osei Owusu, that he did nothing wrong by voting to approve the 2022 budget in the Speaker’s absence.
Justice Abdulai, who filed the initial case that resulted in this ruling believes the judges ignored key laws and portions of the constitution in coming to this conclusion.
In his review filed on Friday, April 8, Justice Abdulai argued that the apex court in interpreting Articles 102 and 104(1) of the 1992 Constitution failed to take into account previous laws of the country which had repealed the original votes of Deputy Speakers.
Also, it is his case that the apex court failed to consider Article 297(h) of the 1992 Constitution which he argues to mean that any power, authority given to a certain public office shall apply to a Deputy or successor of that office.
He is of the view that the constitution did not expressly make provision for a Deputy Speaker to vote or be part of a quorum when presiding over proceedings in Parliament.
The decision has sparked controversy, with the Minority in Parliament, hoping to stand on the recent judgement in their suit against the approval of the 1.5% Electronic Levy (E-levy).
A similar call was made by former President John Dramani Mahama, who urged the plaintiff to file for a review.
In a Facebook post, Mr Mahama expressed concern about the ability of the deputy speakers, who have been given the right to vote during proceedings, to ‘impartially’ choose the winning side in cases where there are voice votes.
“The first vote in most cases taken on a motion in Parliament is a voice vote. The presiding officer, whether the Speaker or any of his/her deputy speakers, is supposed to listen to which is the loudest, the ayes or the nays and make a determination.”
“If the deputy speakers are allowed to vote, then they must take part, first, in the voice vote. If you are presiding and can shout aye or nay with your party in the voice vote, how do you impartially determine which was the loudest?”
“What is the determination of the SC? That deputy speakers can shout aye or nay with the side they agree or disagree with in the voice vote?” he queried.
What the Supreme Court said
In a 29-page document, the apex court noted that Article 97 (1) of the 1992 constitution states that a Speaker of Parliament cannot be an MP, but Deputy Speakers were elected as legislators.
The court held that by virtue of being MPs, deputy speakers still have the right to vote when deciding on a critical issue. To prevent them from voting would amount to disenfranchising their constituents in Parliament.
“To cause a member to forfeit their vote in Parliament merely on account of having to preside over the business of the House in the Speaker’s absence would unfairly disenfranchise not only the presiding member but also their constituents. Such an interpretation would likely give rise to certain perverse outcomes.
“For example, it could lead to opportunistic absences by a Speaker or one of the other Deputy Speakers, as an absence would mean a vote loss by the presiding member and their party,” the court held.
According to the seven-member panel who presided over the case, the constitution clearly defines a person elected as a Speaker and a Deputy Speaker and what their functions are.
It pointed out that Article 104 (2) specifically mentioned that “The Speaker” be prevented from casting a vote and not other persons, such as deputy speakers presiding over proceedings of Parliament.
“Significantly, the voting disqualification in Article 104(2) is specific to the Speaker, and therefore does not generally apply to the person presiding.
“The Speaker is disqualified from voting not because he or she presides over sittings of Parliament, but because the Speaker is not a Member of Parliament, voting being a right only for Members of Parliament,” the court held.
It was also the considered view of the court that the only instance whereby a Deputy Speaker or any MP was barred from voting on the floor of Parliament was under Article 104(5), which is when the MP had a conflict of interest in a specific contract under consideration.
“Presiding at a sitting of Parliament is not intended by the framers of our Constitution to be a disqualifying conflict of interest, and therefore, a presiding Deputy Speaker does not forfeit his or her right to vote merely by virtue of presiding in the absence of the Speaker,” the court added.