Alban Bagbin, the Speaker of Parliament, has slammed President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo Addo’s comments on the Supreme Court’s decision declaring Deputy Speakers to be able to vote while presiding.
The Speaker claims he would have remained silent on the decision if it hadn’t been for the President’s “unfortunate and myopic” remarks.
Parliament is not above the law, and it must follow the Supreme Court’s ruling, according to Nana Akufo-Addo, who dismissed accusations that the highest court lacked the authority to rule on a matter that affects parliament.
“All organs of the state, including me [President Akufo-Addo], as the head of the executive, are subject to the constitution. There is nobody or organ in the Ghanaian state that is above the laws of the land. “
“To suggest that Parliament should operate without interference is to advocate for the very matter we have tried to avoid, the concentration of power. We have had that experience before and don’t want that”, the President said.
The Speaker, on the other hand, has slammed the President’s position. He feels the first gentleman’s viewpoint causes a schism between the legislature and the judiciary.
“I have resisted the temptation of making a comment on the judgment of the Supreme Court on the issue of the voting rights of Deputy Speakers when presiding. But the unfortunate and myopic comments of the President has compelled me to let it out”, Alban Bagbin replied in a statement.
“Mr. President, the issue being discussed is not about Parliament being above the law. Everyone knows that Parliament is not above the law. The Executive and the Judiciary are equally above the law. The issue being discussed is the political question doctrine. It took centuries to detail out the strands of this doctrine, and the principles are settled as to when and how this closed book could be opened, “he added.
As a result, the Speaker advised Plaintiff to seek a review.
The Supreme Court’s decision has also been characterized as ridiculous and dangerous by Alban Bagbin.
According to him, the fact that all members of the panel agreed on the viewpoint is concerning, because the decision interferes with the legislative process.
Alban Bagbin, who previously stated that a presiding speaker does not have a casting vote, said the court’s stance “doesn’t assist investigate and grow our legal jurisprudence.”
“The SC decision is, to say the least, not only an absurdity but a reckless incursion into the remit of Parliament. The trend of unanimity is equally troubling. It doesn’t help explore and expand our legal jurisprudence,” he stated.
