|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Former President, John Mahama, has been told to stop misinterpreting the recent ruling of the Supreme Court on the right of Deputy Speaker of Parliament to form part of the quorum and also cast a vote while presiding over the house.
The apex court of the land offered a landmark ruling this week which will grant deputy speakers of the house the chance to be part of the quorum and also cast a vote when decisions are been made in Parliament.
The court presided over by Justice Jones Dotse, held that the Deputy Speaker does not lose his right to take part in decision-making upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 103 and 104 of the 1992 Constitution.
The landmark judgement was given after private legal practitioner, Justice Abdulai, filed a case against the Attorney-General to contest the First Deputy Speaker Joseph Osei-Owusu’s decision to count himself during a vote to approve the 2022 budget.
Justice Abdulai had also asked the Supreme Court to interpret Articles 102 and 104 of the 1992 Constitution and declare the action of Mr Osei-Owusu as unconstitutional.
But Mr Mahama believes the 7-0 ruling affects the independence of the legislative arm of government and may affect future deliberations in the House.
A unanimous 7-0?
Shocking but not surprising.An unfortunate interpretation for convenience that sets a dangerous precedent of judicial interference in Parliamentary procedure for the future. pic.twitter.com/mKesTDcBNR
— John Dramani Mahama (@JDMahama) March 10, 2022
Abronye DC commenting on this on Angel FM’s Anopa Bofo Morning Show on Thursday said the former President is not the right person to interprete the court’s ruling.
According to him, Mr Mahama refused the opportunity to read law at the University claiming that Law was a difficult course.
“You refused to read law because you said it was a difficult course…instead you chose history which you claimed was cheap, so why try to interprete something you have no knowledge of…,” he said.
Abronye DC was also of the opinion that anyone who refuses to apply the interpretation of the Supreme Court would be jailed.
