Dr. Antoinette Tsiboe-Darko, DI Executive Director
The Danquah Institute (DI) has described the Supreme Court’s judgment affirming the right of a Deputy Speaker or any member presiding over Parliament to vote as valid.
The political think tank has therefore called on politicians to uphold the Constitution, institutions of state and the rule of law, devoid of needless partisanship.
The Institute believes comments by the public regarding the judgement must be made with decorum and respect in order not to scandalize the judiciary.
A statement issued yesterday by the Executive Director of DI, Dr. Antoinette Tsiboe-Darko, said Parliament is not above the Constitution, and must therefore subject itself to the laws of the country.
Appreciate
“The Supreme Court of Ghana has ruled that Standing Order 109(3) of the Standing Orders of Parliament, which was made pursuant to Article 110(1) of the 1992 Constitution, and which provides that a Deputy Speaker or any other person presiding shall not retain his original vote while presiding, is unconstitutional. The full judgment has been made available, and we call on all to peruse the judgement to appreciate the rationale for the decision to declare Standing Order 109(3) of the Standing Orders of Parliament unconstitutional,” part of the statement read.
DI believes Ghanaians must be made to understand that no one branch of government under the Constitution (including Parliament) is a law unto its own self, emphasising that all are subject to the provisions of the Constitution.
It pointed out: “In as much as we recognise the right of individuals to constructive criticisms and intellectual debates, it is our respected view that all of such should be made with decorum and respect and devoid of scandalising the sanctity of the very arm of Government (Judiciary) that serves as the resort for people seeking justice”.
Basis
The statement further explained that Ghana is a country of laws, and the supreme law of Ghana is the 1992 Constitution, which ushered in our current Fourth Republic.
“Article 1(2) of the Constitution therefore provides that ‘This Constitution shall be the supreme law of Ghana and any other law found to be inconsistent with any provision of this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void’. A cursory reading of Article 11 of the Constitution indicates that the laws of Ghana comprise the Constitution, enactments made by or under the authority of Parliament, Orders, Rules and Regulations, the existing law and the common law,” it noted.
To this end, the DI argued that the Constitution is at the summit of the laws of Ghana, and there can be no dispute about this.
“Our Constitution also clearly establishes three branches of government and provides them with specific powers and functions. Thus, Executive authority is vested in the President under Article 58 (1); legislative authority is vested in the Legislature under Article 93(2); and judicial power is vested in the Judiciary under Article 125(3),” the statement added.
It noted that the comments by the Minority in Parliament concerning the judgement, that it is an aberration of justice and amounts to interference in the work of the judiciary, were erroneous.
It also queried Mahama’s reaction that the ruling is a “dangerous precedent of judicial interference in Parliamentary procedure for the future”, saying such referencing is irrelevant and misplaced.
“What ‘travesty of parliamentary justice’ is Honourable Haruna Iddrisu also referencing? Are they suggesting that Parliament’s prerogative to regulate its own procedure under Article 110(1) of the Constitution has no limits? Does Article 110(1) not expressly state that Parliament’s power to regulate its own procedure is “subject to the provisions of this Constitution?” Is Article 2(1) of the Constitution which makes it possible to challenge enactments of Parliament? it quizzed
DI believes it is not for nothing that the framers of the Constitution thought it wise to include Article 2, which deals with the enforcement of the Constitution, stressing that the Supreme Court is thus empowered to make orders and give such directions as it may consider appropriate for giving effect, or enabling effect to be given.
About The Author
