<<Print>>

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.