A former Deputy Attorney General, Joseph Kpemka, has intimated that Ghana, as a country, does not function with its Parliament as the supreme arm of the state.
According to Kpemka, although Parliament is a master of its own rules, the constitution remains the supreme document in Ghana, therefore any law that conflicts with the constitution must be nullified.
“We are not running a country of parliamentary supremacy, that’s not what we are running in Ghana. We are running a country of constitutional supremacy and that’s very clear. So, when I heard some of the Members of Parliament talk about Parliament being master of its own rules, I said yes, that’s true but it shouldn’t conflict with the constitution.
Joseph Kpemka
Joseph Kpemka was of the view that, to the extent that those rules and regulations Parliament enact do not conflict with any principle of the constitution, then they stand. However, he intimated that as soon as they conflict, “then we invoke Article 12 of our constitution and declare them a nullity; that is the law”.
“So, when they said ‘we’re masters of our own procedure’ and et cetera, it is as though that is without limit. Or without caveats off ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’. The constitution itself is very clear that Parliament cannot make a law to say that Ghana is a one-party state even though general legislative power is given to them.”
Joseph Kpemka
Minority’s reaction to S.C ruling emotional
Meanwhile, the First Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Joseph Osei-Owusu, has said the reactions of the Minority in Parliament following last Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling are purely based on emotions.
Mr. Joseph Osei-Owusu indicated that the reactions should rather be legally informed instead of sentimental. He added that he would have loved to hear legal arguments to counter the decision of the Supreme Court.
“I’ve read what is alleged to be former President’s [John Mahama] comments, I’ve read minority leader’s comments; indeed, I’ve seen a video of him making those comments. If you ask me, they are just emotional responses to the judgement. I would want to hear legal arguments; I want to see someone show that what the Supreme Court said is not the focus of the constitution.”
Joseph Osei-Owusu
According to the Deputy Speaker, the ruling is not about political theory and also not about parliamentary practice. He averred that the ruling is about what the constitution says and what the constitution does not say. “I would want to hear legal arguments, not emotional outbursts. So, I will never respond to emotional arguments because fortunately, my mind tends to respond to legal arguments.”
Both comments followed reactions by some lawmakers on the Supreme Court seven-member panel’s unanimous decision that declared that the two Deputy Speakers of Parliament remain Members of Parliament when they are presiding and can vote and be counted as present for purposes of decision-making in the House.
