<<Print>>

I read with shock earlier today, a statement issued by Parliament’s PR Dept on behalf of Speaker Bagbin, seeking to articulate his disagreement with the Supreme Court in the matter of the Interpretation of Articles 102 and 104 of the Constitution 1992.

From the onset, it should be mentioned that the Speaker has a right to have an opinion on the decision of the Supreme Court. Just like any citizen, speaker Bagbin is entitled to disagree with the Supreme Court or even the President.
I believe anyone who hears the President, the Speaker, or the Supreme Court speaks on this matter expects to hear well-reasoned legal arguments.

However, Speaker Bagbin’s position on the subject matter also needs consideration and some thoughts as we advance the argument.

1. The Supreme Court in its 29-page ruling dealt extensively with the three issues it set out to determine. It provided ample legal precedent to back its arguments including the question of interference or sovereignty. It traced the constitutional history of the powers of Parliament from previous republics. Anyone who seeks to disagree with these must at least provide some law as a basis for disagreeing or make some sound and justifiable legal argument to support this disagreement.

Throughout his response, save for the mere mention of the Political Question doctrine, speaker Bagbin provides no legal basis for his disagreement. No law, no precedent, no persuasion. This, to a greater extent, does not portend and add to the advancement of the argument.

His disagreement, not backed by any legal argument is certainly not superior to the detailed legally reasoned position of the 7 Justices of the Supreme Court. Indeed Mr Speaker is not the one clothed with the power to interpret the constitution. The Supreme Court is. I encourage all who are interested in this matter to take time to READ the ruling of the court and that of Speakers' statements side by side for an informed exposition.

2. Even more worrying is the Speaker’s resort to quickly attack the President and call him myopic while calling the Supreme Court absurd. In his statement, Mr Speaker failed to provide any legal basis for a position he seeks to advance, yet jumped to heap insults and attacks on the President and the Supreme Court for their legally expressed positions.

To do this is to open the floodgates for further name-calling and insults of Mr Speaker himself on a day that a member disagrees with him. How will the Speaker take it if, tomorrow, someone who also disagrees with him, choose to hurl unprintable words at him? Would it be proper for Members to also describe his positions as, say, goofy when we disagree with him?

3. President Akufo-Addo spoke with decorum and expressed purely his legal understanding of the provisions of the constitution when commenting on the matter. No insults or name-calling. Mr Speaker may want to take a leaf from that in the future. A statesman of his stature should be the one to uphold the tenets of our democracy but not the one to open the floodgates for disrespect.

4. In the words of Hon. Haruna Iddrisu, the Minority leader, this ruling will pave way for the passage of the e-levy. I am of the view that if this will be the solution to the e-levy passage so be it.

The e-levy is an important measure that will help support thousands of young entrepreneurs, complete thousands of kilometres of roads and support Ghana to recover from the Pandemic.

Many of us as MPs look forward for calm to prevail in Parliament so we can pass it and get on with the important job of serving our people through Government programs. If this is what it will take, then I am in full support.