Nana Akufo-Addo had said the decision of the Supreme Court on the voting rights of Deputy Speakers cannot amount to judicial inference in the work of Parliament.
According to President Akufo-Addo, the suggestion that Parliament is beyond the scrutiny of the Supreme Court is to suggest that Parliament is a law onto itself.
“I’m not sure people who are saying this have actually taken the time to read the Constitution of our country. It says so in black and white. The legislative powers of the state, which is vested in parliament, is subject to the provisions of the Constitution. All organs of the Ghanaian State, including me, as the Head of the Executive, we are all subject to the teachings of the Constitution,” the President said.
He continued, “There is nobody in the Ghanaian State that is above the fundamental law of the land. It will lead to the very matter that we have striven so long to avoid – the concentration of unregulated power in our state; we don’t want that and we brought about this Constitution to allow that to not reoccur.”
The above statement is what has triggered Mr Bagbin to respond, as he said he had resisted the temptation to make a comment on the judgment of the Supreme Court until the President commented on the matter.
The Speaker, in a statement, noted that the Supreme Court decision, is, to say the least, not only an “absurdity but a reckless incursion into the remit of parliament.”
He noted that “the trend of unanimity is equally troubling,” adding: “It doesn’t help explore and expand our legal jurisprudence.”
Narrowing in on the president’s comment, Mr Bagbin stressed that it was “myopic”, adding: “Unfortunately, it only goes to worsen the schism between the Executive and Parliament.”
He said the impartiality of the Speaker, Deputy Speaker or Presiding Officer has been treasured and fought for by the country throughout its democratic development.
“Mr President, the issue being discussed is not about Parliament being above the law. Everyone knows that Parliament is not above the law. The Executive and the Judiciary are equally not above the law. The issue being discussed is the political question doctrine. It took centuries to detail out the strands of this doctrine and the principles are settled as to when and how this closed book could be opened,” he indicated.
Mr Bagbin urged the plaintiff to seek a review