Bagbin failed to learn from Adjaho’s 2015 quorum ruling – Kweku Baako on SC ruling

Abdul Malik Kweku Baako, Editor-In-Chief of the New Crusading GUIDE newspaper, has reacted to the March 9, 2022 Supreme Court ruling on voting rights of Deputy Speakers and the legality of counting them to form a quorum.

Kweku Baako’s comment zoomed in on the point about the supremacy of the Constitution as against what he described as ‘Legislative Supremacy.’

His post on Facebook titled, ‘FROM THE HOUSE OF RECORDS (3) …When Speaker Doe Adjoho Upheld The Supremacy Of The Constitution As Against “Legislative Supremacy,” cited how a former Speaker of the House, Edward Doe Adjaho, had in a 2015 ruling interpreted a challenge to do with quorum for decision taking.

Baako wrote: “The issue of the requisite quorum necessary for Parliament to take or make a decision at a Sitting became a matter for determination in the House on 22nd. December, 2015 after a ballot of AYES(66) vrs NOES(67) had been cast relative to the “Request for Approval of 2016 Sovereign Bond of up to One Billion United States dollars(US$1.0billion)

“Almost 7 years down the line, the Apex Court of the land, on 9th. March, 2022, delivered a judgment that virtually vindicated/reaffirmed the ruling effected by Speaker Doe Adjaho on 22nd. December, 2015; when it (Apex Court) declared the purported rejection of Budget 2022 on 26th November, 2021 as unconstitutional while affirming the 30th. November, 2021 approval as constitutional!

In addressing the late November 2021 purported rejection of the 2022 budget by Speaker Bagbin and a one-sided (opposition only) Parliament, the veteran journalist outlined what he said was the moral of his post.

“If Speaker Bagbin and the 8th Parliament had been minded to the ruling of Speaker Doe Adjaho during the Sixth Parliament, what transpired in Parliament on 26th November, 2021 would have been avoided! And perhaps, same with all the subsequent nasty developments,” he stressed.

Baako’s post reproduced a record of how Adjaho whiles presiding had emphasized the need to stick to the Constitution as the last resort on all matters of contention in the House.

“Hon. Members, I do not intend to take a position, which is different from the position, taken by the House and the Leaders in consultation. However, I want to make some points very clear, NOT FOR THIS HOUSE ALONE BUT FOR FUTURE PARLIAMENTS.

“Hon. Members, you are aware that this House IS NOT SUPREME. WE ARE SUBJECT TO THE CONSTITUTION of the Republic of Ghana. THE RULE IS THAT, WHERE THE CONSTITUTION HAS MADE A PROVISION FOR REGULATION OF THE BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE, THEY TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER ANY OTHER, INDEED, THE STANDING ORDERS OF THIS HOUSE,” Adjaho emphasizes.

Supreme Court rules on Deputy Speakers’ voting rights and quorum formation

The March 9 ruling of the Supreme Court determined that presiding Deputy Speakers are entitled to vote contrary to Parliament’s Standing Orders. It also said the Deputy Speakers could be counted to form a quorum.

The second determination is what allowed the December 2021 approval of the 2022 budget to hold because First Deputy Speaker Joseph Osei-Owusu counted himself as an MP to allow the Majority Group to cross the 138 threshold needed for a vote.

He, however, did not participate in the said vote. All 137 NDC MPs did not enter the chamber at all. In the case of the November 26 budget rejection, all 137 MPs were in Parliament but 138 Majority Group MPs walked out before the rejection was voted.

That rejection was revoked before the subsequent approval.

The 2015 Hansard record as reproduced by Kweku Baako:

* PS: The STANDING ORDERS of This House are still in force. “Ugly Noises” from and by the usual “Licensed Irritants” and “Gate Crashers” would be politely ignored. There shall NO DIRECT RESPONSE(S) from or by me!

* MR. SPEAKER (Right Hon. Doe Adjaho) : Hon. Members, I do not intend to take a position, which is different from the position, taken by the House and the Leaders in consultation. However, I want to make some points very clear, NOT FOR THIS HOUSE ALONE BUT FOR FUTURE PARLIAMENTS.

* Hon. Members, you are aware that this House IS NOT SUPREME. WE ARE SUBJECT TO THE CONSTITUTION of the Republic of Ghana. THE RULE IS THAT, WHERE THE CONSTITUTION HAS MADE A PROVISION FOR REGULATION OF THE BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE, THEY TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER ANY OTHER, INDEED, THE STANDING ORDERS OF THIS HOUSE.

* THERE IS QUORUM TO DO BUSINESS AND THAT IS ONE THIRD OF THE HOUSE AND THERE IS QUORUM TO TAKE A DECISION. SO , WE NEED TO DRAW A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE QUORUM TO DO BUSINESS AND THE QUORUM TO TAKE DECISION. THE QUORUM TO TAKE A DECISION IS REGULATED BY ARTICLE 104(1), WHICH PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:

* ” Except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, matters in Parliament shall be determined by the votes of the majority of members present and voting with at least half of all the members of Parliament present “.

*THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION IS THAT, THE TIME THAT THE VOTE WAS TAKEN, DID WE HAVE AT LEAST, HALF OF THE HON. MEMBERS PRESENT? IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WHICH HAS BEEN CAPTURED IN THE STANDING ORDER 109(1) OF OUR STANDING ORDERS.

*If we go by the results of the headcount, by adding 67 to 66, we would get 133. THEREFORE, THERE IS A SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE THERE. SO , AT THE TIME THAT THE VOTES WERE TAKEN, THIS HOUSE LACKED THE LEGAL-IN FACT, THE CONSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY TO TAKE A DECISION(Hear! Hear!).

*ONCE WE LACK THE CONSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY TO TAKE A DECISION, THAT IS WHAT WOULD BE READ INTO THE HANSARD- THE 67 AND THE 66, AS WE SPEAK, IS WHAT THE HANSARD HAS CAPTURED AND THAT IS WHAT SOMEBODY COULD TAKE TO COURT ON.

*If somebody wants to raise a legal or constitutional issue, that is what he would take to court and they would find out whether we have the number to take the decision and if 133 definitely is not half of the House- Let us get this. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE ARE CONFRONTED WITH AN ISSUE WHERE A HEADCOUNT HAS BEEN TAKEN AND WE DO NOT HAVE THE NUMBERS- SINCE 1993 THAT I HAVE BEEN IN THIS HOUSE, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT WE HAVE BEEN CONFRONTED WITH THIS ISSUE WHERE A HEADCOUNT HAS BEEN TAKEN AND THE RESULTS THAT WERE BROUGHT SHOW THAT WE DID NOT HAVE THE REQUIRED NUMBER.

* We have taken headcounts in this House several times, from the First Parliament to the Sixth Parliament. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE HAVE BEEN CONFRONTED WITH THIS SITUATION AND I SHOULD USE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF THIS HOUSE.

*SO, I ENTIRELY ENDORSE THE POSITION TAKEN BY THE HON. FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER, THAT WE DO NOT HAVE THE NUMBER, CONSTITUTIONALLY SPEAKING, TO TAKE A DECISION. THEREFORE, NO DECISION HAS BEEN TAKEN.(Uproar).

* Hon. Members, the Supreme Court has ruled in AMOAKO TUFFOUR VRS ATTORNEY-GENERAL, that nobody can make constitutional what is unconstitutional and vice versa.

*THAT incident happened in this House in the Third Republic and it went to the Supreme Court. Whether the Question has been put or it has not been put, ONCE WE DO NOT HAVE THE NUMBER TO TAKE THE DECISION, IT IS OF NO-

* Hon. Members, if you had had the required number to take the decision, then you may have to go for rescission under Standing Order 93 to rescind the decision. But now, we do not have the number to take the decision. So, no decision, in effect, has been taken by virtue of the Constitution.

* THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THIS MATTER HAS CONFRONTED US- I THOUGHT I SHOULD USE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY THE POSITION FOR THE RECORDS AND FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.

Source: Parliamentary Debates: Official Report (The Hansard); Col: 3245- 3248, 22nd. December, 2015).