|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
An Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Ghana, Ransford Gyampo, has called on the public to interrogate dispassionately, the Supreme Court ruling on deputy speakers’ vote casting when presiding over Parliamentary businesses.
Contributing to the public discourse following the court’s interpretation of articles 102 and 104 of the 1992 Constitution granting deputy speakers the right to vote when sitting instead of the Speaker, Prof. Gyampo observed that the debates have been held along partisan lines which have not helped to project the right image of the Judiciary and the country’s politics.
“The Supreme Court ruling on the right of Deputy Speakers to vote while serving as speakers must be interrogated dispassionately. Unfortunately, the partisan responses have not helped as they insinuate many things that do not help the quest to shore up the independence of the judiciary. Why should it be that every top NPP person likes the ruling while every top NDC hates it? Why can’t we have a middle way of objective thinking about the issue? Excessive partisan is indeed a serious affront to our God-given ability to think and analyze issues, with a view to promoting fairness and objectivity in our political discourse.”
He also argued that though the ruling may be in favour of the Majority Caucus of Parliament who are seeking for the numbers to pass the E-levy, “it will also help those opposed to it if they win power and hung parliament comes back again tomorrow”.
It would be recalled that the National Democratic Congress (NDC) Caucus of Parliament in their reaction to the ruling of the Apex Court accused the Judiciary of interfering with their “time tested Parliamentary practice and established conventions”, thus, breaching the rule of Separation of Powers when the court struck out the House’s standing order that prevents a deputy speaker from voting when presiding over affairs.
However, to the lecturer who is the Director of European Studies at the same University, Legon, there is the principle of Checks and Balances that allows the Court to review the other arms of the Government’s actions.
“It must be noted that per the doctrines of Checks and Balances as advocated by the French Political Thinker, Baron de Montesquieu, the courts have the right to review and rule on the activities of both the Executive and Legislature. So the court, in theory, did no wrong in entertainment the matter brought before it and judging it,” he said.
“But Parliament is also a Master of its own processes, now as even more independent arm of government. It can therefore decide to go by its own rules and work with its Standing Orders. But this, to my mind, shouldn’t be the case, as it may amount to paying the judiciary back, by snubbing their ruling and setting the stage for another chaotic clash in Parliament, between those who support the ruling and those who are against it. The way to go maybe for a review of the decision to be sought at the Supreme Court” Prof. Gyampo added.
He concluded his statement by asking “what happens to debate if those expected to moderate it takes to one side via partisan voting?” adding, “This question must be answered taking cognizance of the fact that deputy speakers must not necessarily lose their right to represent their constituents simply by moderating debates. Perhaps we may want to rethink our constitution by looking for deputy speakers who do not represent constituencies just like the Speaker.”
