We did our best, but the Supreme Court decided otherwise – Justice Abdulai
A private legal practitioner and lecturer Justice Abdulai, has welcomed the review decision of the Supreme Court, challenging the voting rights of a Deputy Speaker in Parliament.
Although he has some reservations, he believes it is time to move on as a nation and accept the judgement of the Supreme Court.
He spoke to journalists after court proceedings which reaffirmed the decision that Deputy Speakers can vote and be counted as part of the quorum when making decisions.
The apex court in a unanimous decision on Tuesday 26 April 2022, dismissed the review application filed by the law lecturer against the deputy speaker’s voting rights.
“A review application is one of the most difficult things to succeed in at the Supreme Court, and so I knew the odds are against me. I still moved forward with this because I believe the Supreme Court is made up of seasoned lawyers and if you make strong arguments before them, they are amenable to reviewing their previous decision.
“They decided otherwise and once they have decided otherwise, I think we have to move on as a nation. I didn’t want a situation where posterity will question us on why we did not take the small window of opportunity that was available to us to attempt a review of the decision on the 9th of March.
“We did everything that we ought to have done to get the sort of judgment that we needed, but this is what the Supreme Court says, and we all have to abide by that,” he said.
The first verdict on March 9, had Justices Jones Dotse (Presiding), Nene Amegather, Prof Ashie Kotey, Mariama Owusu, Lovelace Johnson, Clemence Honyenuga and Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi.
The two new additions to the review panel were Gertrude Torkornoo and Professor Mensah Bonsu.
Supreme Court earlier decision
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 that presided over the case, the constitution clearly defines a person elected as a Speaker and a Deputy Speaker and their functions.
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 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.