My people have a story they tell of the bat and how it urinates. I have not verified it but I like the sense it teaches. They say it [the bat] urinates heavenwards. This way of urinating by the bat, is not accidental or indavertent or inevitable. It is a decision taken by the bat. The bat’s decision is to urinate on God.
I am not sure what God has done to anger the bat such that its determination to urinate on God remains persistent regardless of the certainty that the bat’s efforts will fail and that the bat will remain the victim of this rather blasphemous thought and effort. The result and consequences of this rather futile effort to which the bat is hopelessly committed remains the same because gravity reverses its intended effect. My people use this story to teach lessons to those who embark on an effort ostensibly, pro bono publico.
So here we are, the Speaker of Parliament makes a pronouncement on a statement made by the Leader of the NDC caucus in Parliament. The pronouncement is solidly anchored on a precedent set by the Speaker’s predecessor. When the Speaker’s predecessor applied the precedent, all and sundry accepted it without cavil. The present Speaker applied the precedent and the temperature in the country is taken to fever pitch because the leader of one caucus in Parliament is not happy with the same decision which was applied by the immdiate past Speaker about four years back when he was in Parliament.
The Speaker is hauled to the most exalted court of the land [the Supreme Court]. The effect of the court action definitely disrupted Parliament’s sittings and Parliament has not been able to recover from it. Ghanaians believed the wisdom of the highest court of the land will solve the problem and get Parliament to resume sitting. Indeed, at a point during the proceedings, it appeared some members of the court believed the court’s final decision will result in Parliament resuming sitting. The court’s decision which was hailed by the mastermind of the court action as a victory for democracy in Ghana has turned out to be a nightmare for the victor who has only achieved the feat of the mythological Sisyphos.
After chalking a momentous victory against the Speaker of Parliament, accompanied by initial threats of treason among others if the Speaker refuses to obey the court’s judgment, the judgment has not even been entered and it has not been served on the Speaker to enable him obey the judgment and avoid the treasonous consequences for disobedience.
Now there is a subtle plea that the Speaker should use his discretion to recall Parliament. Now the victor does not intend to use the Supreme Court power to compel the Speaker to do what the victor wanted to get the Supreme Court to compel the Speaker to do. Now there is urgent business to be conducted in Parliament. The specific business considered urgrent is not demonstrated. No direct urgent business is mentioned. The Speaker is now seen [I may now say with a smile, respected] as the final authority to decide matters relating to Parliament which his adversary the victor did not initially acknowledge, the reason for which he scampered to court.
When the Supreme Court was touted as the institution to solve the problem, there was no urgent business. The Speaker who never went to court and actually cautioned that Parliament itself could resolve the problem and that the matter be left to Parliament to resolve is NOW the reason why Parliament is not sitting and he is responsible for ensuring that Parliament sits. Sisyphos take no responsibility for the part he plays in it.
Like a cry baby, Sisyphos conveniently forgets and is oblivious that when Parliament adjourned twice, it is because his own members denied Parliament of a decisional quorum. Sisyphos, like cry babe, requests for a recall without any regard whatsoever for the interest and convenience of many other members of Parliament who are at the moment definitely out of and far from Accra doing business also important and at this time more important for our democracy than business which will suffer no irretrievability if subsequently transacted.
Like cry baby, Sisyphos makes the request regardless of the fact that even as a discretion, the Speaker has a constitutional duty [lest he be hauled to the Supreme Court again] to be fair to the other members of Parliament in order for the exercise of his discretion to be NOT regarded as arbitrary. So Sisyphos like cry babe wants what he wants regardless of what it costs others.
As it is with cry baby, there he is crying that the Speaker is his client because he “owns” all constitutional cases in Ghana, and why must the Speaker illegally procure a lawyer when it is his duty to represent the Speaker in all such cases? Ok so he has the opportunity to now represent the Speaker in court, and he starts crying again, why has the Speaker not sent the very lawyer who is encroaching upon his constitutional territory to represent him? And even more loudly, for relinquishing the duty to represent the Speaker in court as cried for by the cry babe, the Speaker’s lawyer, cry babe now cries again, should be punished whether there is a law which sanctions it or not. Cry babe, what do you want?
And so cry babe, you want to represent the Speaker when you are openly and diametrically opposed to him? is that honest, or ethical? And you think you are indemified from ethical sanctions for openly declaring your conflict but others who heed your cry should be sanctioned?
Not satisfied because it is clear that his cry for sanctions have not been heeded, cry babe starts crying again that lawyers criticise judgments of the courts unfairly. He cries even louder that such lawyers should be punished. As in every instance, whilst so crying he forgets his criticism of the Court of Appeal judgment which acquitted Jakpa and a leader in Parliament. What is pathetic is that whilst still so crying he is busily denigrating the minority decision in the Sisyphos case thinking it romantic. In effect, cry babe is literally saying that whilst I have immunity from any and all consequences for criticising decisions of the courts, any other lawyer who does the same thing should be severly punished.
Cry babies usually have their way when they have indulging parents. When their parents fail, they [cry babies] strangers will do it for them. This time the CRY BABIES should be told NO with a hard knock accompanied by a stern warning to immediately get weaned of such behaviour.
By: Thaddeus Sory, a private legal practitioner
