A former Ranking Member on the Constitutional, Legal, and Parliamentary Affairs Committee of Parliament, Inusah Fuseini says the judgment of the Supreme Court affirming that Deputy Speakers of Parliament can vote while presiding constitutes an interference with the business of Parliament. The landmark judgment was given in a case brought by a law professor, Justice Abdulai, who was contesting the First Deputy Speaker’s decision to count himself as forming a quorum for a vote on the 2022 budget.
The judgment backed the position of the First Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Joseph Osei-Owusu, who defended his decisive vote in the approval of the 2022 budget, although he was presiding as Speaker.
The Court also struck down order 109 (3) of the Standing Orders of Parliament, describing it as unconstitutional. But in an interview with Citi News, the former Tamale Central Member of Parliament, Inusah Fuseini said the judgment conflicts with the ruling and standing orders of Parliament.
“The business of Parliament is the preserve of Parliament. Parliament should be allowed to decide how it conducts its business. It is not the place of the Court to do so.”
“Parliament is guided by its Standing orders. For a Supreme Court to strike down Order 103 constitutes an interference in the business of Parliament. The Supreme Court should not have put itself in a situation where its ruling conflicts with that of Parliament. As an arm of government, it is equal with Parliament, and not above it.”
