Accounting Professor and private legal practitioner Prof. Kwaku Azar has advised the Supreme Court to stay away from political issues no matter how appetizing they maybe.
He has maintained that the Supreme Court’s decision on the voting rights of Deputy Speakers was rushed.
He opined that the court failed to research on the matter before arriving at it’s final decision.
He said he has gathered information that there is another case filed at the court inviting the apex court to declare that ten Speaker must at all times all material times at least half of all MPs are present before the determination of an issue.
He is asking the court to stay away from issues.
“This cursory research shows the Court rushed to judgment and did little or no serious research.
I have just seen another suit, asking the Court to say that the Speaker should ensure that at all material times at least half of all MPs are present before the determination of an issue, etc.
Parliament has its own rules, which are alien to the Court. For instance, there is presumption of a quorom unless a point of no quorom is raised, entertained and ruled upon.
I am pleading to the Court to stay out of these matters, no matter how appetizing the menu that is served to them.
There are political questions that must be solved by the political branches. There are issues that the Constitution has committed to the other branches of government.”
Read his full statement below
We just read an opinion where the Court held that a Presiding Deputy Speaker retains his original vote.
Even a cursory research into our history would have shown that this holding was in the 1957 Constitution and Parliament Act (1965).
That this same holding was proposed in the memorandum to the constituent assembly in 1969. It was considered and rejected by the constituent assembly.
That since then no Constitution has gone back to this rule and the standing orders have incorporated the constitutional scheme of not allowing a presiding officer to retain his vote or have a casting vote.
This cursory research shows the Court rushed to judgment and did little or no serious research.
I have just seen another suit, asking the Court to say that the Speaker should ensure that at all material times at least half of all MPs are present before the determination of an issue, etc.
Parliament has its own rules, which are alien to the Court. For instance, there is presumption of a quorom unless a point of no quorom is raised, entertained and ruled upon.
I am pleading to the Court to stay out of these matters, no matter how appetizing the menu that is served to them.
There are political questions that must be solved by the political branches. There are issues that the Constitution has committed to the other branches of government.
The resolution of some of these issues by the Court will express lack of the respect due the coordinate branches of government. We must avoid a situation where different pronouncements are being made by various branches of government on the same question.
The Court must jealously guard its apolitical stature and must not allow itself to be used as a political referee.
The Court should also reciprocate the deference that the other branches show to it. This is not to say the Court should allow these branches to act ultra vires.
Far from it. As a notorious plaintiff, I will be the last to recommend such a thing. What I’m recommending is the serendipity to know the difference between what has been textually committed to the coordinate branches and what is an ultra vires action.
We do not have parliamentary sovereignty. Equally we do not have executive or judicial supremacy.
The answer to the suit is a one sentence ruling that these are not justiciable because of the political question doctrine.
These are extremely polarized times and exactly the time when being apolitical is an asset.
#SALL is the cardinal sin of the 8th Parliament.
Da Yie!
By: Rainbowradioonline.com/Ghana
