The outcome of the Supreme Court case on whether Deputy Speakers of Parliament can vote while presiding and must be considered part of the quorum when a decision is made must put a stop to the embarrassing violent conduct in Parliament.
This is the opinion of the Member of Parliament (MP) for Akuapem South and Deputy Minister for Local Government, Decentralisation and Rural Development, Hon O. B. Amoah when he appeared on the TV3 programme, ‘The Key Points’ Saturday morning.
According to him, the Supreme Court’s decision on the impasse over the different interpretations on the voting of presiding Deputy Speakers is welcoming for various reasons.
He stated that the judgment should convince all sides in Parliament and put an end to the shameful behaviour of some MPs who have turned Parliament into a violent House as a result of their lack of appreciation of the constitutional provisions on the role of a presiding deputy Speaker.
Hon. O B Amoah also advised his colleague MPs to appreciate that the Standing Orders of Parliament is subsidiary legislation, which must conform to the provisions of the Constitution or be declared as null and void, in spite of the notion that Parliament is a master of its own procedures and practices.
According to him, the Supreme Court has on several occasions declared Acts or Legislative Instruments passed by Parliament null and void for being inconsistent with the Constitution of Ghana for which reason the decision by the Supreme Court on the Standing Orders should be accepted in good faith.
The Supreme Court in its judgement in a 29-page document indicated that Parliament operates on the standard democratic principle of equal representation or “one member, one vote,” with matters decided by majority vote.
According to the Apex Court, to, therefore, cause a member to forfeit his or her 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 and/or incentives. For example, it could lead to opportunistic absences by a speaker or one or the other deputy speakers as an absence would mean a vote loss by the presiding member and their party.
“In particular, as article 96(1)(b) of the Constitution requires that the first and second deputy speakers come from different political parties, an interpretation that deprives a presiding deputy speaker of their vote could give the rival party an unfair advantage in a sharply divided vote,” the ruling states.
Hon. O.B. Amoah observed that the major issue that led to the Supreme Court was an interpretation of the Constitution and stressed that following the judgement there should be no more interpretations that will generate the kind of chaos witnessed last year.
