Folks the Majority have overturned the rejection of the 2022 budget today!
Now they basis for this overriding decision was on Order 109, rule 1 of their standing orders.
*Order 109(1) No question for decision in the house shall be proposed for determination unless there are present in the house not less than one-half of members of Parliament...*
In all there are 275 members of Parliament, two of whom are deputy speakers.
Any of them presides in the absence of the Speaker who is not a member of Parliament.
The Speaker of Parliament is not a member of the house, he has neither an Orignal vote nor a casting vote.
This means that the two characteristics of any person who is not a member of the house but can do business with the house is the lack of original and casting vote.
So for example Ministers, the President and State Officials who go to Parliament to do business cannot take part in any decision of the house because they are not members of the house.
Now here is where it gets interesting...
Order 109 rule 3 gives a very interesting perspective of Deputy Speakers when they are presiding, it says...
*109(3) A Deputy Speaker or any other Member presiding shall not retain his Orignal vote whiles presiding*
You see the law is very interesting, Order 109 rule 3, explicitly takes away the most important right of a member of Parliament away from a Deputy Speaker who is presiding and that is the right to vote.
Now the question is, When the voting rights of a member is taken away, is he still a member of Parliament?
Because the only thing that distinguishes Members of Parliament from non-members of Parliament in the house is the right to vote!!
So when Order 109 rule 3 took away the voting rights of Joe Osei Wusu when he was presiding today, the law assumed that he is not a member of Parliament because members of Parliament have voting rights, non members do not.
What this means is that, with the exclusion of Joe Osei Wusu who was presiding as Speaker today, there were only 137 member of Parliament in the chamber when the question for approval of the budget was posed clearly in violation of Order 109 rule 1.
The other issue is on what Orders or Law did the presiding Speaker rely on to declare the proceedings of last Friday void?
Now when you declare an earlier proceedings of the house void, what are the processes that must be followed in accordance with law and the standing orders?
Can a Deputy Speaker override a decision of the Speaker in the house without the Speaker’s consent?
Assuming without admitting that the Speaker erred last Friday, shouldn't his deputy speaker be in consultation with his boss and the leadership of Parliament to address it in conclave before trying to address it on the floor?
What happens when the Speaker returns?
Couldn't all this have been avoided by building consensus instead and making compromises rather than escalating this impasse which would prove very problematic for Parliament and the executive??
Would this action by the Majority open up the Government for several class actions suits when the tenets of the budget is implemented next year?
Was this the best option available to Government to address this impasse, especially when it would need the Minority’s support on several other things it would take to house later?
Or anytime they take a motion, agreement or budget to the floor and it's rejected, are they going to set up their own Parliamentary sitting to overturn it??
Was this really the best option...think about it!!
Mensah Thompson
Executive Director, ASEPA
Source: Peacefmonline.com/Ghana
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are those of the writers and do not reflect those of Peacefmonline.com. Peacefmonline.com accepts no responsibility legal or otherwise for their accuracy of content. Please report any inappropriate content to us, and we will evaluate it as a matter of priority. |
The writer is simply ***barred word*** or mischievous. Infact NDC and the speaker Bagbin did not understand this provision that is why they acted in certain unacceptable way. What prevented Mr Bagbin to wait and make sure that calm was restored before leaving?. He knew very well that he had caused serious blander and in complete bleach of the constitution and the standing orders of the house that is why he quickly left not bordering about the repercussions of his action. Again he and his party thought that in his absence no decision can be made because and NPP member will act as a speaker and that will take away all his rights and reduce the majority number to 137 making them less than half. This is where they failed and am sure now they have learned a great lesson. The wise wisdom of Joseph Osei Wusu(Joe Wise) cannot be forgotten in the history of Ghana and I think it is this very reason that God gave us this composition of parliament. The speaker does not represent any constituency because he was not voted by any constituency. In this case he is a neutral referee and has nighter original vote nor casting vote. A deputy speaker is a member of parliament dully elected to represent a constituency. When we are counting MPs he is part and when counting speakers he is part. When he is acting as a speaker he loses only original vote but retains his casting vote. This am told will permit him to vote if he is to be the decider in case the minority and majority were at par. In this case he counted himself as an MP for the day and is true but didn't use his casting vote because it wasn't needed. Assuming without admitting that that day he was a speaker and so had no MP right, then that day the MPs in Ghana automatically reduced from 275 to 274. Half of 274 MPs will be 137. The majority without the second speaker was 137 and it meet the constitutional threshold. The difference between this 137 and that of the minority is that the main speaker presided and so the MPs were still 275 and half cannot be 137. Joe Wise was indeed wise on that day. About waiting for Bagbin, this is below the belt argument. The constitution does not say so and only Bagbin knows when he will return. If he decides to take more than one month for his medication which will take us to 2022 , must we wait for him before he comes to reverse his clear unconstitutional decision?
Thanks for your brilliant analysis. However, the fundamental question you left unaddressed is whether or not the standing orders of Parliament can override the express provisions of the constitution. The constitution does not take the voting right, either original or casting, from any of the deputies. It is only the Speaker who is not an elected member of the house, who does not have the right to vote. If the framers of the Constitution did not want a deputy speaker, when presiding, to vote they would have expressly said so. The canons of construction are clear. The express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of others!!!! Besides, you failed to address the issue of whether or not the deputy speaker, when presiding over any business of the house, remains a member of the house. The deputy speakers are first and foremost representatives of their constituents who must take decisions on their behalf. The right of the constituents of the deputy speakers of representation cannot be lost just because their reps have been exalted in Parliament. In any case, when the deputy speakers are presiding, do they count as members of the house present? If the answer is yes, then nothing untoward happened per the provisions of the constitution. Now, on collaboration. Both the majority and the minority agree that there was frantic effort to achieve consensus. However, the minority unreasonably withheld their consent. Certainly the majority could not have folded their arms in despair. They needed to act to safe the country from economic crisis!!!!!!!. To me, the speaker did nothing on Friday. Whatever was purportedly done was a complete nullity since the provisions of Article 104(1) were not obeyed. At least, the minority confirmed that their number was exactly 137. 137 is less than half of the members of the house, simple and short.