Minister for Lands and Natural Resources, Samuel Abu Jinapor, has taken a swing at the Minority claiming the side is confused about the Constitutional Provisions that stipulates the numbers that constitute a quorum for doing business and for taking a decision.
According to him, the decision was taken by the House on Tuesday 30th November 2021 to overturn the ruling of Speaker Alban Bagbin of Friday 26th November 2021 was constitutional because the House had a quorum to make a decision.
Contributing to a Motion by the Minority challenging the constitutionality of the decision of the House to approve the 2020 Budget on Tuesday, the Minister argued Article 102 and 104 are distinguishable.
He noted that while article 102 is on quorum for conducting business, 104 speaks of a quorum for taking a decision determined by the vote of the majority of members present and voting with at least half of all the members present.
“This is the distinction; and that is whereas Article 102, the framers of the Constitution deliberately mentioned the persons presiding, for the purposes of conducting business. In Article 104 the framers of the Constitution deliberately omitted to mention the person presiding.”
That, he said, is the law hence Parliament on Tuesday was clothed with the authority to conduct business and make a decision because 138 members were in Chamber, enough to form a quorum for business to be conducted and for a quorum to start the business.
Commenting on the controversial statement by Speaker Alban Bagbin that he is the second in command after the President, Mr Jinapor noted Article 57 (2) of the Constitution states the President takes precedence over all other persons in Ghana.
He said, “And in descending order, the Vice President, the Speaker of Parliament and the Chief Justice shall take precedence over all other persons in Ghana. In this Article 57 (2) the order is the President, the Vice President the Speaker and the Chief Justice.
The Lands Minister who is also the MP for Damongo noted that in Article 20 where it provides for succession, the framers of the Constitution talk about the President, when the President is absent, the Vice President and the Speaker and deliberately omitted the Chief Justice.
According to him, on the principle of interpretation, the Chief Justice cannot be included in Article 20 and stressed this is a similar principle that has been provided in Article 102 and 104.
The events of yesterday, he said, therefore satisfy the constitutional provision because out of the 275 members of Parliament, 138 were present and 137 voted
|Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are those of the writers and do not reflect those of Peacefmonline.com. Peacefmonline.com accepts no responsibility legal or otherwise for their accuracy of content. Please report any inappropriate content to us, and we will evaluate it as a matter of priority.|