The Executive Director of the Ghana Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), Prof. H. Kwasi Prempeh, has revealed that presiding over parliament for a deputy speaker does not present much conflict of interest for him to forfeit his vote.

According to him, the Supreme Court’s ruling on the right of Deputy Speakers of Parliament to vote is “a constitutionally correct decision, no matter what one might feel about the outcome politically”. Prof Prempeh explained that the influence of Deputy Speakers has been overestimated in the ongoing controversy of his right to vote and preside over parliament.

“Presiding does not, in and of itself, present much of a conflict of interest to cause a Deputy Speaker to forfeit their vote, especially if he or she were to be required by House rules to vote last or cast a vote; only when there’s a tie.”
Prof. H. Kwasi Prempeh

His comments followed the Supreme Court’s ruling that a Deputy Speaker can be counted during the formation of a quorum for Parliamentary decision-making and equally participate in voting to determine parliamentary activities.

Prof Prempeh intimated that the longevity of a practice does not “cloak that practice with constitutionality”. As such, no matter how longstanding a practice is, its constitutionality cannot be established or presumed until and unless it is challenged in an appropriate constitutional case.

“Thus, the fact that this is how Parliament has done its business all this while is not a good enough argument, constitutionally speaking”.
Prof. H. Kwasi Prempeh

Following this, he noted that if one does not want presiding Deputy Speakers to vote, the solution is not to allow them to be members of parliament in the first place. Prof Prempeh suggested that such a person can be made “the Speaker” and not an MP, which makes him not entitled to vote.

“As long as presiding Deputy Speakers are, first and foremost, MPs elected to represent communities of voters in Parliament, Parliament cannot reasonably deprive them of their right to vote merely by virtue of the fact of presiding over a sitting of Parliament”.
Prof. H. Kwasi Prempeh

MPs presiding over parliament

That notwithstanding, Prof Prempeh emphasized that there is nothing wrong with both Deputy Speakers being “MPs and retaining their vote” when they preside. This, he explained, is the reason why the Constitution must be taken seriously when it says that the 1st and 2nd Deputy Speakers must come from different parties.

“That way, the rival parties in Parliament will each have one Deputy Speaker, both of whom get to vote when they preside”.
Prof. H. Kwasi Prempeh

On his part, a Law Lecturer at the University of Professional Studies Accra (UPSA), Justice Abdulai, the plaintiff, indicated that the Supreme Court’s verdict has brought about further polarisation. According to him, he did not anticipate such happening after the ruling. Mr Abdulai insisted that the ruling would “bring out some sanity into the body politics of this country particularly the House of Parliament”. However, he revealed that the decision from the Supreme Court “has brought about additional difficulties which have yet polarised our system”.

The whole essence, he indicated, of going to the Supreme Court was to ensure that the decision that would come ultimately from the Supreme Court would be more acceptable because it would not be “tainted with any particular political colourisation”.