Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin
Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, has returned to work after his medical review in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and put up a spirited defence of the action he took in supporting the Minority NDC to ‘reject’ the 2022 budget which was subsequently overturned by the Majority NPP because it was unconstitutional.
He insisted on Thursday evening that it is strange for him to be accused of acting ultra vires to the 1992 Constitution.
On November 26, 2021, the NDC MPs hit the rooftop, claiming they succeeded in rejecting the 2022 budget, but the Majority Caucus (NPP) fired back, saying the whole exercise supervised by Mr. Bagbin, a card bearing member of the NDC, was unconstitutional because the Minority Caucus did not have the quorate number to take such a major decision.
Article 104 (1) of the 1992 Constitution says, “Except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, matters in Parliament shall be determined by the votes of the majority of members present and voting, with at least half of all the members of Parliament.”
Currently, the NDC has 137 members, while the NPP has 137 members with one independent MP, Andrew Amoako Asiamah (Fomena), who has decided to do business with the NPP group in the House.
The NPP subsequently quashed the ‘unconstitutional’ action of the Speaker and went ahead to approve the 2022 budget presented by the Finance Minister on November 17.
Mr. Bagbin said he acted within the confines of the constitution, saying “the House was duly constituted for its work for the purposes of business and voting in accordance with Articles 102 and 104 respectively and the public record of the Votes and Proceedings of the House on the 26th of November lends credence to this position.”
“It is persuasive to note what Erskine May, an authority in Parliamentary Practice, says on this matter: ‘The Speaker’s rulings constitute precedents by which subsequent Speakers, Members, and Officers are guided…’ Such precedents are noted and in the course of time may be formulated as principles or rules of practice. They are an important source of determining how the House conducts its business.”
For him, the failure to register an objection for a lack of quorum meant any decision to be taken in respect of the purported absence of a quorum should have had regard for the numbers as enunciated in the Votes and Proceedings of the House on the said date.
Attacking Majority Action
He said the decision by the NPP majority to overturn the decision he made on November 26 when he helped the NDC to reject the budget, was out of order.
“The actions of the House on Tuesday 30th November 2021 bring into sharp focus the powers of a Deputy Speaker vis a vis that of the Speaker.
“On that day, the First Deputy Speaker of Parliament presiding found that the vote taken on the 26th of November rejecting the budget was null and void as the requisite number was not present in accordance with Article 104 of the Constitution,” he read.
He argued that the First Deputy Speaker, Joseph Osei-Wusu, popularly called Joe Wise, indulged in an act of misconduct which is tantamount to insubordination, intimating, “as to whether a Vice President can preside over a cabinet which had early on taken a decision on a subject matter presided over by the President, and without consulting the President, get the Cabinet to overturn the decision earlier taken, is for your kind debate.”
“But who am I to say my Deputy, First Deputy Speaker, the Hon. Member for Bekwai Constituency, Hon Joseph Osei-Wusu, the Wise, might have indulged in an act of misconduct tantamount to insubordination,” he stated sarcastically.
Mr. Bagbin said Parliament ought to be mindful of the precedents that exist in the House to guide their conduct, adding that “this will ultimately prevent an interpretation of our rules that provides us with problems.”
Quorate Number 138
On the decision taken by the Majority Caucus on November 30, 2022, the Speaker said, “Without a doubt, our Standing Orders and the 1992 Constitution clearly outlines the bar on the one presiding in Parliament in respect of participating in debates or voting on any matter. Article 102 of the Constitution is to the effect that the person presiding, be it the Speaker, a Deputy Speaker or a Member presiding does not form part of the quorate number.”
“Whether or not the principle applies in pari materia with Article 104 is immaterial because a different issue at law arises which respectfully, the Hon. First Deputy Speaker may not have averted his mind to.
“A distinction must be drawn between the temporary absence of the Speaker from the chamber in which case any of the Deputy Speakers may preside, and when the Speaker is unavoidably absent as provided for under Order 13(2).
“In fact, Order 13 creates two different types of instances under which the Deputy Speaker may preside in accordance with Article 101 of the Constitution,” he explained and continued that “under Order 13(1), any of the Deputy Speakers may be asked to take the Chair whenever Mr. Speaker so requests due to his temporary absence from the Chamber.”
“The Deputy Speaker presides until such a time that Mr. Speaker is able to resume the Chair to preside over the proceedings. It must be noted that, under this ambit, the Deputy Speaker may be counted as forming part of the Quorate number required for either business or voting because at the beginning of the sitting, he was not exercising the powers of the Speaker.”
Order 13
For him, Order 13(2) presents a different situation and said under this order, the Speaker’s unavoidable absence from the precincts of Parliament means the First Deputy Speaker assumes the authority of the Speaker and performs all the duties of the Speaker in relation to the Chamber.
“In this role, the First Deputy Speaker takes on the cloak of an Acting Speaker and for the purposes of our rules and the Constitution assumes all the powers of the Speaker in relation to the business of the House.
“In this sense therefore, the First Deputy Speaker for the period of my unavoidable absence from Parliament was the Acting Speaker of Parliament and thus all rules and limitations applied to him in a manner that applies to the substantive Speaker of Parliament,” he posited.
By Ernest Kofi Adu, Parliament House