SC ruling on Deputy Speakers vote: Parliament should have put in amicus brief – Martin Kpebu

Lawyer Martin Kpebu has asserted that Parliament should have been allowed to give an amicus brief in the case that was before the Supreme Court regarding the Deputy Speaker’s right to vote.

“Parliament should have been made a party or at least invited to put in an amicus brief,” he said on Citi FM’s Big Issue programme.

He said this was because the larger outcome of the case was going to affect the way Parliament works.

“Parliament being a huge constituency in this matter; a huge stakeholder, I think we should have heard from Parliament. The central theme of this suit was going to affect Parliament,” he explained. 

He further mentioned that the legislative body has the opportunity to examine a new line of action, following the judgment by the Court.

“Maybe they will want to look at it and take a fresh action or something so that we can get full arguments into it because that way, when the decision comes, we will make sure all angles have been covered.”

The Supreme Court on Wednesday, March 9, 2022, unanimously gave judgment to the effect that the 1st Deputy Speaker of Parliament or any Member of Parliament who presides as a speaker reserve the right to be counted to vote and may exercise his right to vote. 

A seven-member panel presided over by Justice Jones Dotse unanimously declared that the two Deputy Speakers of Parliament are members of Parliament thus can be counted as present for the purposes of making decisions in Parliament when presiding thereby dismissing an application by a private Legal practitioner and lecturer of UPSA Law School Justice Abdullai, which sought the constitutionality of the same.

The applicant sought the interpretation of Articles 102 and 104 of the Constitution, 1992 by the Supreme Court in order to declare a November 30, 2021 decision of the First Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Joe Osei Owusu as unconstitutional.