Speaker Alban Bagbin and Deputy Speaker Joe Wise
Prof. Yaw Gyampo of the Political Science Department of the University of Ghana, Legon has bemoaned the partisan responses to the Supreme Court (SC) ruling on Deputy Speakers’ right to vote.
Such responses, according to him, “have not helped as they insinuate many things that do not help the quest to shore up the independence of the judiciary.”
In a statement on the subject, he explained that “the Supreme Court ruling on the right of Deputy Speakers to vote while serving as Speakers, must be interrogated dispassionately.”
He asked “why should it be that every top NPP person likes the ruling while every top NDC hates it? Why can’t we have a middle way of objective thinking about the issue?”
Excessive partisanship, he said, “is indeed a serious affront to our God-given ability to think and analyse issues, with a view to promoting fairness and objectivity in our political discourse.”
The ruling may elate those seeking for the numbers to pass the E-Levy, he said, but he was quick to add that “it will also help those opposed to it if they win power and hung parliament comes back again tomorrow.”
Continuing, he stressed that, “per the doctrines of Checks and Balances as advocated by the French Political Thinker, Baron de Montesquieu, the courts have the right to review and rule on the activities of both the Executive and Legislature. So the court, in theory did no wrong in entertaining the matter brought before it and judging it.”
Parliament, he however noted, “is also a master of its own processes, now as even more independent arm of government. It can therefore decide to go by its own rules and work with its Standing Orders.”
But this, he explained, “shouldn’t be the case, as it may amount to paying the judiciary back, by snubbing their ruling and setting the stage for another chaotic clash in Parliament, between those who support the ruling and those who are against it.”
The way to go may be for a review of the decision to be sought at the Supreme Court, but a key question that must engage our mind, he said, is “what happens to debate if those expected to moderate it takes to one side via partisan voting? This question must be answered taking cognizance of the fact that deputy speakers must not necessarily lose their right to represent their constituents simply by moderating debates.”
Perhaps, he went on, “we may want to rethink our constitution by looking for Deputy Speakers who do not represent constituencies just like the Speaker.”
By A.R. Gomda