Contents
Gabby Otchere Darko, a leading member of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), has stated that former President John Dramani Mahama may be forgiven for his comments on the Supreme Court ruling on the right of Deputy Speakers to vote while presiding in the House, because his understanding of the law is limited.
He did, however, say that the same cannot be said of Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin, who is a lawyer and should have a perfect understanding or interpretation of the law.
You may choose to forgive John Mahama because his elementary understanding of the law is evidently small, going by his reactions to Supreme Court decisions – except ex-presidents are expected not to speak loosely against the 3 arms of Govt. But, what about lawyer Alban Bagbin?
— Gabby Otchere-Darko (@GabbyDarko) March 12, 2022
Speaker Bagbin criticized the Supreme Court for the ruling they gave in relation to Deputy Speakers voting in Parliament while presiding in the House.
He said the ruling was not only an absurdity but a reckless incursion into the remit of Parliament.
“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 comment of the President has compelled me to let it out.
“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. The President’s comment is myopic and unfortunate. It only goes to worsen the schism between the Executive and Parliament.
“The impartiality of the Speaker, Deputy Speaker or Presiding Officer has been tresusured and fought for by this country throughout our democratic development. 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 not 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. Please, I encourage the Plaintiff to go for a reLview.”
