The Former Deputy Speaker of Parliament and Former MP Bekwai, Joseph Osei Owusu, has argued that the central issue surrounding the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill is the constitutionality of the decision taken during its passage. He stated that Parliament could only make a valid decision when at least half of all Members of Parliament were present in the chamber at the time of voting.
Mr Osei Owusu explained that allegations suggesting fewer than half of MPs were present during the decision-making process deserves careful examination. He indicated that the matter goes beyond political disagreements and rests on a constitutional requirement that Parliament must satisfy before taking any binding decision.
“The constitution is clear that unless 50 per cent or more of all members are in the chamber, you cannot take a decision. If indeed the numbers were less than half, then that becomes the critical issue.”
Joseph Osei Owusu
The Former Deputy Speaker noted that merely registering attendance in Parliament does not amount to participation in a decision.
Drawing on his parliamentary experience, the Former MP of Bekwai recalled earlier incidents in which decisions were overturned because the required numbers were absent. He cited a vote during the tenure of former Speaker Doe Adjaho involving the Bank of Ghana’s authority to support government expenditure.
According to him, although one side appeared to have won that vote, a later count showed the chamber lacked the constitutionally required numbers. As a result, the presiding officer declared the vote invalid and the Speaker subsequently affirmed that constitutional position.
Mr Osei Owusu also referred to the parliamentary dispute over the 2021 budget. He recounted that after some MPs left the chamber, a decision was announced on the budget, only for parliamentary leadership to later determine that the required quorum was not met.
He said the decision was subsequently nullified and retaken in accordance with constitutional requirements. The development later contributed to a legal challenge before the Supreme Court involving the interpretation of quorum and the role of a presiding officer.
The Former Deputy Speaker further rejected suggestions that a Speaker could not revisit a flawed decision if constitutional requirements have not been satisfied. He argued that the legality of the decision itself remains the decisive factor.
“If indeed there were less than half in the chamber, then it is unconstitutional. The Speaker would be within his right to declare that purported decision unconstitutional.”
Joseph Osei Owusu
He added that constitutional compliance is the foundation of parliamentary legitimacy. Consequently, any determination regarding the bill would depend largely on whether the House has the required quorum on the day the vote was taken.
Constitutional Breach Could Trigger Reconsideration Of Contested Bill
The Former Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Joseph Osei Owusu said Parliament possesses established procedures for revisiting decisions where constitutional concerns emerged. He explained that the Standing Orders provide mechanisms for reconsideration when significant procedural issues arise during the legislative process.
Mr Osei Owusu stated that if a decision is found to be unconstitutional, Parliament could return to the relevant stage of consideration. He explained that members could move motions requesting the reconsideration of specific clauses before proceeding to a final reading.
“When a decision is unconstitutional, it means the process can be reopened. Parliament can return to the relevant stage and reconsider the clauses in question.”
Joseph Osei Owusu
The Former MP Bekwai noted that the procedure known as second consideration allows lawmakers to review particular provisions of a bill. He said such a process could be initiated when members identify issues requiring further parliamentary scrutiny.
Mr Osei Owusu indicated that he has not been presented with details of the specific procedural violations. Nevertheless, he emphasised that constitutional questions carry greater significance than ordinary procedural disputes.
He argued that where a constitutional breach existed, Parliament has a clear obligation to correct the situation before proceeding further. In his assessment, the validity of the decision depends primarily on whether the House satisfies quorum requirements at the moment the question was put.
The Former Deputy Speaker also addressed possible legal action relating to the controversy. He observed that the Supreme Court focuses on constitutional breaches when examining matters are connected to parliamentary proceedings.
Mr Osei Owusu said previous court decisions demonstrated that judges were generally concerned with whether Parliament complied with constitutional provisions. Consequently, any future litigation would likely centre on the constitutionality of the vote rather than internal parliamentary management.
“The real issue is the constitutionality or otherwise of the decision. If the numbers were less than half, the question must be put again and Parliament should proceed accordingly.”
Joseph Osei Owusu
He reitereated that once the constitutional issue is settled, Parliament could move forward through the established procedures available under its rules. In his view, adherence to constitutional requirements would provide the clearest path toward resolving the controversy surrounding the bill.
READ ALSO: US House Approves Measure to Restrict Trump’s Iran War Powers
