The Supreme Court has held that a Deputy Speaker of Parliament presiding in the absence of the Speaker of Parliament is entitled to vote and take part in the decisions by Parliament.
“That is to say that a Deputy Speaker or a person presiding other than the Speaker does not lose their right to vote when they are presiding over the proceedings of Parliament,” the court held yesterday when it gave an interpretation of Article 102 and 104 Clause 1 of the 1992 Constitution.
The interpretation of the constitutional provision stems from a suit filed by a private legal practitioner and a lecturer at the University of Professional Studies, Accra, Justice Abdulai, following the initial rejection of the 2022 budget by the NDC and the subsequent approval of same by the NPP.
The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, has for some time, been travelling abroad to seek medical review, and in his stead, the First Deputy Speaker, Joe Osei-Owusu, whilst presiding over the passage of the 2022 budget, participated in the voting process.
The lecturer, therefore, filed a suit and contended that it was unconstitutional for the Deputy Speaker to have counted himself for the purpose of making up the quorum of half of the Members of Parliament (MPs) required by Article 104 (1), when Parliament approved the 2022 Budget and Economic Policy of Government on November 30, 2021.
Mr. Abdulai was seeking a declaration that, upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 102 and 104(1) of the 1992 Constitution, a Speaker or any other person presiding over Parliament cannot be said to be part of the members present for the purposes of decision making.
The Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, in his submissions however, argued that a Deputy Speaker of Parliament or any member presiding over proceedings in the House in the absence of the Speaker, is entitled to be counted for the purpose of making up the quorum of half of the Members of Parliament (MPs) required by Article 104 (1) of the Constitution for the determination of matters in Parliament.
He said further that a Deputy Speaker or any member presiding over proceedings in the House in the absence of the Speaker is entitled to cast a vote for the purpose of taking a decision in the House in accordance with Article 104(1) of the Constitution.
Mr. Dame submitted further that the plaintiff relied only upon a very narrow, literal and absurd construction of articles 96, 101, 102 and 104 of the constitution and thereby, failed to take account of the different kinds of quorums required for the different “businesses” of Parliament and the rationale therefore, which supports the AG’s view that, in so far as decision making in Parliament is concerned, all Members of Parliament including a Deputy Speaker when presiding, are entitled to vote.
Judgment
A seven-member panel of the court presided over by Justice Jones Dotse and assisted by Justices Nene Amegatcher, Prof. Nii Ashie Kotey, Mariama Owusu, Avril Lovelace Johnson, Clemence Honyenuga, and Yoni Kulendi, in a unanimous decision held that upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 102 and 104(1) of the Constitution, a Deputy Speaker of Parliament or anybody presiding over Parliament is entitled to be counted for the purposes of forming a quorum under Article 104(1) of the 1992 Constitution.
The court added that “upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 102 and 104(1) of the constitution, a Deputy Speaker or any Member of Parliament presiding over Parliament in the absence of the Speaker can vote and take part in the decision by Parliament.”
BY Gibril Abdul Razak