Frank Annoh-Dompreh, Majority Chief Whip
The Majority Chief Whip, Frank Annoh-Dompreh, yesterday said the reaction by the Minority Leader, Haruna Iddrisu, to the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Deputy Speakers can vote while presiding over the business of Parliament is strange, and must be disregarded.
According to him, his colleague from the other side “could have spoken more responsibly, knowing him for his intelligence and experience in governance.”
Mr Iddrisu yesterday said the ruling by the Supreme Court to the effect that the Deputy Speakers can vote and be counted as part of quorum in Parliament while presiding over the business of the House, in the absence of the Speaker, is an indication that the judiciary had failed the country’s parliamentary democracy.
“This ruling of the Supreme Court, we are not surprised, but we are utterly disappointed in the Supreme Court which is determined to support a struggling President with an ailing economy.
“This ruling of the Supreme Court can, at best, be described as judicial support for E-levy…To set aside Parliament Standing Orders is a serious travesty of parliamentary justice,” he said.
Reacting to the comments by his colleague, Mr Annoh-Dompreh, who is also the MP for Nsawam-Adoagyiri, said the comments from the Tamale South lawmaker were unfounded.
“The commentary coming from the Minority Leader in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling is unfortunate and misguided. He and people who think like him should spare us the ill-intentioned complaints and respect due process,” he said.
“Where were these comments from him when the same Supreme Court ruled to uphold Mr Mahama’s election as President?” Annoh-Dompreh quizzed.
Dismayed
Meanwhile, James Agalga, MP for Builsa North MP, says he is dismayed by the ruling of the Supreme Court.
In an interview with JoyNews, the former Deputy Interior Minister said based on his understanding of the relevant provisions, he disagreed with the verdict of the apex court.
According to him, the First and Second Deputy Speakers’ role comes with some privileges and responsibilities which may require them to lose their rights as representatives of their constituents while acting in the stead of the Speaker.
“I am indeed shocked and surprised because I thought that for purposes of fairness, persons who assume the chair under normal circumstances should not be part of the decision-making process because you sit there as an umpire. And if you assume the role of an umpire, why should you be allowed to vote?
“Never mind that the First and Second Deputy Speakers are Members of Parliament. They represent their people, but they have assumed an additional responsibility. And so whenever they sit in that chair, they’re expected to be fair and unbiased,” he argued.
About The Author
