SC ruling: We can forgive Mahama but not you – Gabby chides Bagbin

A leading member of the ruling New Patriotic Party, Gabby Asare Otchere-Darko, has stated that when it comes to forgiving the errors of people, Alban Bagbin should not expect the same treatment meted out to John Dramani Mahama.

He said this is because the former president has a track record of responding to Supreme Court rulings in a particular way and besides he is not a lawyer, so that is not surprising.

He, however, said that it should not be the case of Alban Bagbin who is a lawyer by training.

“You may choose to forgive John Mahama because his elementary understanding of the law is evidently small, going by his reactions to Supreme Court decisions – except ex-presidents are expected not to speak loosely against the 3 arms of Govt. But, what about lawyer Alban Bagbin?” he said in a tweet.

The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday, March 9, 2022, that sit-in Speakers can still have a vote on bills or any other provisions in parliament, quashing such provisions in the Standing Orders of Parliament.

This ruling has however received several reactions, interpretations and argumentative challenges from across the board.

The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, in reacting to the ruling, criticized the Supreme Court, saying that it is not only an absurdity but a reckless incursion into the remit of Parliament.

“I have resisted the temptation of making a comment on the judgment of the Supreme Court on the issue of the voting rights of Deputy Speakers when presiding. But the unfortunate and myopic comment of the President has compelled me to let it out.

“The SC decision is, to say the least, not only an absurdity but a reckless incursion into the remit of Parliament.

“The trend of unanimity is equally troubling. It doesn’t help explore and expand our legal jurisprudence. The President’s comment is myopic and unfortunate. It only goes to worsen the schism between the Executive and Parliament.

“The impartiality of the Speaker, Deputy Speaker or Presiding Officer has been treasured and fought for by this country throughout our 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. Please, I encourage the Plaintiff to go for a review,” he said.