Alban Bagbin
Many, yours truly inclusive, expected the reaction being witnessed from the camp of the eagle-headed Umbrella following the landmark ruling by the Supreme Court on whether a deputy speaker could cast a vote when presiding. We would have been surprised if the leadership of the Umbrella had for once shown wisdom and restrained themselves from the innuendos, diatribes and outright insults at the Supreme Court and the Judiciary as a whole. This is so because running down state institutions is their stock in trade.
The SC has always been a victim of Zu-za’s foul mouth. Not forgetting the Electoral Commission and the Police Service. Even the Clergy have not been spared the marauding foul smell from their rotten-teeth infested mouths. So we do understand Zu-za’s political tantrums because it is the overpampered child of Asomdwekrom.
What matters is that the Supreme Court has spoken and with a very clear voice: 7-0. I’m sure Parliament has taken notice, and the necessary modalities would be laid to actualise the practicality of the ruling.
I was not happy to hear President Nana Dee speak on the Supreme Court ruling. My fears were confirmed when the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, released a statement to literally insult the President. Bagbin’s release contains no legal or political justification. All it contained was emotional effusions of a confused Speaker.
Many expected him to cite rules and conventions from other Commonwealth jurisdictions to support his argument that the Supreme Court erred in its judgment. But what we saw was a statement, which contained nothing but a direct attack on President Nana Dee.
Is it not strange that Bagbin chose to attack President Nana Dee instead of the Supreme Court that came up with the judgment. If President Nana Dee, who cited conventions to support his claim, is myopic, then I wonder what Bagbin’s empty release is.
By the way, Justice Abdulai says he needs some cowries before he can apply for a review. Since Bagbin is so confident that the 7-0 ruling could be easily overturned, why is he silent on Lawyer Abdulai’s request? After all, he has accumulated more per diem allowances than he needs.
Abusuapanin, equating a deputy speaker to a referee is a very warped logic, to say the least. It is common knowledge that a player is not picked from his peers and made a referee. So common sense should tell all that the deputy speaker is a player and cannot be equated to a referee!
Examples abound to deflate the player-referee argument. The following should suffice:
- Article 41 of the South African constitution ensures that the Speaker, who is an MP, has a casting vote;
- The Nigerian Speaker, who is also an MP, has a casting vote per article 75 a (i) of the Nigerian constitution; and
iii. The Australian Speaker, who doubles as an MP, has a casting vote as enshrined in section 44 of the Australian constitution.
Same applies in Canada, India, the United Kingdom and many other Commonwealth jurisdictions. Is it not shameful that Mr. Speaker, the so-called parliamentary colossus, is ignorant about these conventions? Or is he playing Mischief?
See you next week for another interesting konkonsa, Deo volente!