The Supreme Court of Ghana, being the apex court of the land, is thought of as the final arbiter in a case, particularly when the case contravenes the 1992 constitution.
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, exercised its judicial powers when a seven member panel presided over whether or not a Deputy Speaker in Parliament, acting as Speaker, could be said to be a Member of Parliament and exercise a right of voting.
The Justices voted unanimously saying a ''Deputy Speaker is entitled to be counted as a member of Parliament for quorum" and can "vote and take part in the decision of Parliament".
But the court ruling has been greeted with lots of controversies as some members of the Minority in Parliament and the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC) see the verdict to be a travesty of justice.
Former President John Mahama argues that the Supreme Court has set a ''dangerous precedent of judicial interference in Parliamentary procedure for the future" while NDC Member of Parliament for Ningo-Prampram, Sam George also describes it as ''despicable''.
"The sham called Justice delivery in our Republic. Despicable!'', he tweeted.
However, it appears only one person is bold to tell specifically what the Supreme Court Justices actually mean by this verdict and this person is the Editor-in-Chief of the Insight newspaper, Kwesi Pratt.
Discussing the issue on Peace FM's ''Kokrokoo'', Kwesi Pratt minced no words as he expressed that the ruling is aimed at giving the Majority in Parliament an advantage in the House.
By virtue of ruling, Mr. Pratt held that the court is supporting the Majority in Parliament.
As if to explain that due to the current tie in Parliament where both the New Patriotic Party and National Democratic Congress have 137 members each, it is apparent that the side which gets the majority gains an upper hand during proceedings in the House, he said; ''What is the purpose of this interpretation? The purpose of this interpretation is to allow the so-called majority to carry the day even as we have 137/137. That's the effect. That is the effect; no other effect! Is that the right way to go about this? For the Judiciary now to be making decisions about how voting can be carried in the House?''
To him, the ruling doesn't bring fairness into the House because if the Speaker is supposed to be unbiased, then the Deputy Speakers should have no a right to vote.
''When the Supreme Court make the decisions, we are entitled to examine the decisions of the Supreme Court and to comment on the decisions of the Supreme Court'', he stated.
Therefore, in examining the verdict, he stressed; ''Deputy Speakers are Deputy Speakers. Deputy Speakers are not Speakers. That's a fact but when Deputy Speakers move and sit in that chair with the gavel, they exercise the powers of Speakers. They do not exercise the powers of Speakers because they have the same salary with the Speaker. They exercise the powers of Speaker clearly because in that position they are performing functions of the Speaker and in that position as they perform the functions of Speaker, they are expected to rise above the partisanship in the House.''
''So, if the drafters of the constitution intended the position of Speaker to be a neutral arbiter, how can those act instead of the Speaker not be expected to act as neutral arbiters?'' he questioned.
Source: Ameyaw Adu Gyamfi/Peacefmonline.com/Ghana
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. |
Bagbin 'ato pete tuo'. To wit 'Bagbin has shot the vulture' This de monik monstet called Bagbin thought he has shot an Eagle not knowing it was this scavenger called 'opete' or vulture. Now with SC ruling he cannot no longer frustrate govt efforts to develop the country.
Mind you, Mr. Pratt, the Speaker himself, belongs to a party, the NDC! If you are so concerned that you doubt Joe Wise's rising above partsanship with respect to his function as acting speaker of the house when Mr. Babin, the substantive speaker, is absent, what about Mr. Babin's? Yet, Mr. Pratt has lost his reason.
It is very disappointing for a journalist of the calibre of Mr. Pratt to say that "the unanimous ruling of the seven judges of the supreme court sets a dangerous precedent of judicial interference in parliamentary procedure for the future." What does Mr. Pratt mean by the Supreme Court interfering with the procedures of Parliament? Then, it is the solemn right of any citizen to seek the interpretation of the constitution in the supreme court, and it’s the mandate of the supreme court to give its interpretation, but not in any way to be misconstrued as interfering with the business of the parliament. This mischievous assertion by Mr. Pratt is rather unfortunate and smacks of intellectual dishonesty. The speaker of the parliament is not an MP. But the deputy speaker is an Mp, and that is his core mandate, indeed, to represent his constituency and vote in their interest. Furthermore, he only acts as a speaker of the house when the substantive speaker is absent or when the procedure of the house so demands. If you like, for administrative purposes and in running the business of the house, he was elected as the house's deputy speaker by the members of the house based on his competence and mertits, and that in no way relegated his primary mandate as an MP-so that the people of his constituency are not denied their representation in Parliament. This is simple logic that any sane person should be able to come to terms with. I keep saying, blatant opposition makes you academically dishonest and incompetent. By the way, how does Mr. Pratt measure rising above partisanship in the house when he so doubts that Joe Wise can live up to that task?
Partisanship have blinded most of the people I think they should have known better. Someone voted to represent a constituency on a party ticket can not be said to be none partisan on the alter of presiding. The difference between the youth and most of these Old Citizens, is that they existed before us. There is absolutely no super reasoning
STOP DRINKING THE APIO IS NOT HELPING YOU VERY MUCH I WISH YOU KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT IF YOU HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO SAY. NDC SO IGNOOOOOOORANT, LOOOOOOOOSERS THEY DON'T EVEN UNDERSTANT THE CONSTITUTION, CANNOT EVEN INTERPRATE THE LAW. AGAIN INEVERYTHING THEY HAVE NO SOLUTION EXCEPT CRITISIMS SUCH LOOOOOOSERS LEADERS AND LOOOOOTERS. OP DRINING APIO MY FRIEND NOT GOOD FOR YOUR BRAIN. IS NOT HELPING YOU PRATT
S3be oh tafratse, minnim s3 ***barred word*** sei. As3m a woreka yi nyansa b3n na ewom? Speaker no ny3 MP enti orentumi nto aba mma obiara. N'abadiakyiri no de3, abre biara no oy3 MP anti 3s3 s3 too aha ma ne mp3suafuor no. Emu da ho fannn. S3 wonte ase3 a kohye po.
The teeth and the face
I support your Kwasi Pratt
TEN GOLDEN STEPS TO AVOID E LEVY LEGALLY: The incidence of the E Levy/tax is on the sender. Ten principles of digitalizing and avoiding the incidence on the sender by genuinely allowing your receiver “cash out” agreed money on your wallet with your approval/consent through the following simple steps. 1.Either Deposits your money or transfer from you bank into u wallet which is currently free/CAPPED @GH10/cheaper than 1.5% on the principal/money if you momo or directly transferred money to the receiver eg(1.5% mom tax on GH¢ 7000 being momo)= GH¢105 MOMO TAX. 2. SMS/WHATSUP your contact no, voter I'd no to u recipient to go to a known vendor/VENDOR 'S NAME KNOWN TO THE SENDER. 3. While on phone / video call with u recipient who is right in front of a vendor FOR CONFIRMATION. Your recipient will give your cell no (senders cell no) to the vendor to commence ‘’ ALLOW CASH OUT’’ process ostensibly ON THE SENDER"S cell no. Simultaneously, the SENDER/u will initiate “CASH OUT” processes. 4.communicate exact/agreed amount to withdraw to u recipient/vendor. 5.Few minutes later, a prompt from u recipient/vendor to u /SENDER on your phone to confirm WITHRAWAL. 6. Cash will be paid to your brother/recipient who is at vendor's end as if u were there physically 7. NO E LEVY WAHALA 8. Transfers charges (only withdrawal charges) 9. Tip the vendor 10. Smart Digital withdrawal technology.