Deputy Minister for Lands and Natural Resources, George Mireku Duker, has lampooned the Minority in Parliament over their law suit to prevent President Nana Akufo-Addo from assenting to the E-Levy Bill.
The E-Levy Bill was passed by Parliament on Tuesday, March 29, 2022 after the Minority walked out of the chamber in protest against the Bill.
The Minority claims the approval of the Bill is unconstitutional and has dragged the Attorney General to the Supreme Court.
Minority Seeks Reliefs
The Minority Leader, Haruna Iddrisu and North Tongu MP, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa including other members of the Minority seek reliefs as follows:
“a. A declaration that on the authority of the Supreme Court case of Justice Abdulai v. Attorney-General, Writ No. J1/07/2022 dated 9th March 2022, the constitutional quorum number for decision-making and voting within the meaning of Article 104(1) of the 1992 Constitution is 138 Members of Parliament out of the 275 Members of Parliament and not 137 Members of Parliament.
b. A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of articles 2(1)(b) and 104(1) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, there was no quorum to enable the 137 Members of Parliament of the Majority Caucus present in Parliament on 29th March 2022 to pass the Electronic Transactions Levy (‘’E-Levy’’).
c. A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Article 104(1) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, the passing of the Electronic Transactions Levy (‘’E-Levy’’) by the 137 Members of Parliament of the Majority Caucus present in Parliament on the 29th March 2022 without the requisite quorum number of 138 Members of Parliament present in Parliament is null and void and of no legal effect.
d. An order of the Honourable Court setting aside the passing of the Electronic Transactions Levy (‘’E-Levy’’) by the 137 Members of Parliament of the Majority Caucus present in Parliament on the 29th March 2022 as a nullity.
e. Any other order(s) the Honourable Court may deem fit.”
Mireku Duker Blasts Minority
Hon. George Mireku Duker, during a panel discussion on Peace FM's morning show ''Kokrokoo'', took on the Minority asking them how they intend to go to the Supreme Court after bastardizing the court.
His comment was related to utterances of the Minority Leader, Haruna Iddrisu and his colleagues against the Supreme Court after it declared that Deputy Speakers in Parliament are Members of Parliament and can vote on matters in the august House.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu and members of the Minority disparaged the court claiming the Justices who heared the case had given the verdict in favor of the E-Levy Bill and the incumbent government.
Their position was seen to be insulting to the integrity of the Judiciary but no apology was offered by the Minority.
Hon. Mireku Duker therefore found it ridiculous that the Minority would want to go to the Supreme Court to plead their case.
''They say they are going to court. It's good but I want them to be consistent. At a point, they say they don't believe in the judgement of the court. Consistency is very relevant because it borders on conscience and people are watching as well as listening to us. You claim you don't believe in the Supreme Court but now you're sending your case to the Supreme Court. Let's accord respect to the institutions that we, as Parliamentarians, have built," he said.
He however believed the law suit is just a show-off to their supporters.
''We should note that, at a point, we can't lambast and disgrace them, then on another leg, we stand somewhere and say we are going to court," he rubbished the suit.
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. |
NDC again is wrong seeking misapplication of rules and laws from Abdulai SC ruling. 1. SC declared in Abdulai interpretation that standing orders of Parliament must agree with constitution. 2. Parliament is still the master of its own proceedings. It was not the SC duty to count who was in the house and who was not in the house. 3. It was also not the duty of the SC to take over the role of parliament to supervise and demand the quorum of its sittings. What are MPs paid for? The SC to do their work for them?. The SC is called to intervene to interprets the constitution . Parliament must still do its own nitty gritty. 3. The Parliament has the procedure to challenge and determine whether there is quorum and when and where and how to do that challenge. The SC has not taken over parliament to temper with the procedure. 4. Abdulai SC case sought to clarify who constitute a quorum of the parliament. 5. NDC is confused. It has no case. What do they want from SC? When to determine a quorum, or where to determine a quorum or how to determine a quorum? This is Parliamentary business which Abdulai case changed nothing from it. Abdulai case addressed who constitute a quorum. 6. NDC is in the wrong place if they want amendments about when, where, and how to determine a quorum . This is parliamentary work. SC will come in only when it is done wrong and the SC is invoked. But that is too late for E- Levy.
I see the NDC SC issue as camouflage . In the first place why did they leave the chambers knowing clearly the NPP cannot win when it comes to voting to determine the stance of the bill. I see it as a planned thing, they have betrayed Ghanaians and finding a way to isolate themselves from blame. They have been lamenting all the time that the SC is bias, so what are you going there for? To let Ghanaians know that they don't have hands in the passing of the bill.
@Fii, I find your lines of reasoning as a typical dye in a “” wool NDC. These minority groups really insulted the Supreme Court and here you are giving the proverbial Kwaku ananse comparison.
The npp guys are so so funny, they just do not understand the importance of airing your grievance on issues. Does it mean that if a child tells his mom that the food you prepared is full of salt, he loses the right to be given for again by the mom? All that the child was to make the mom aware that next time she should use less salt. In fact the child is even helping the mom to be a better cook. Criticizing the SC of bias is a way of getting them to be impartial. Nothing less nothing more, and that doesn't mean one loses his right to bring his case before them. It rather to the advantage of the SC to improve on their justice delivery.