Professor Ransford Gyampo
Supreme Court rules deputy speakers can vote whiles presiding
MPs divided over the ruling of the court
Minority hints at seeking review of ruling
Senior Political Science lecturer at the University of Ghana, Professor Ransford Gyampo, has advocated for Deputy Speakers not to be elected from among Members of Parliament.
According to him, this will prevent a situation where the Deputy Speaker, when presiding, participates in a vote on the floor of the House.
Posing a rhetorical question in a Facebook post, Prof Gyampo asked “what happens to debate if those expected to moderate it takes to one side via partisan voting?”
He added that opponents of the Supreme Court ruling which grants voting rights to Deputy Speakers should seek a review of the matter to put finality to it.
“But Parliament is also a Master of it’s 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, to my mind, 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.
“A key question that must engage our mind 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 we may want to rethink our constitution by looking for deputy speakers who do not represent constituencies just like the Speaker,” Prof Gyampo said in a Facebook post.
Read below the full post of Professor Gyampo
The Supreme Court ruling on the right of Deputy Speakers to vote while serving as speakers, must be interrogated dispassionately. Unfortunately, the partisan responses have not helped as they insinuate many things that do not help the quest to shore up the independence of the judiciary.
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 partisan is indeed a serious affront to our God-given ability to think and analyze 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. But it will also help those opposed to it if they win power and hung parliament comes back again tomorrow.
It must be noted 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 entertainment the matter brought before it and judging it. But Parliament is also a Master of it’s one 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, to my mind, 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.
A key question that must engage our mind 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 we may want to rethink our constitution by looking for deputy speakers who do not represent constituencies just like the Speaker.
