Chief Whip for the majority group in parliament, Frank Annooh-Dompreh, says the First Deputy Speaker, Joseph Osei-Owusu, acted within his mandate as acting house Speaker when he dismissed a motion by the minority side.
On two occasions, the first deputy speaker dismissed a motion by the minority side asking for a reversal of the approval of the 2022 budget statement and economic policy.
In a post on Twitter reacting to the minority's response to the first deputy speaker's decision, Frank Annoh-Dompreh, the Member of Parliament for Nsawam Adoagyir, notes that the acting Speaker has the prerogative to admit or refuse the motion and that he rightly exercised same.
"The First Deputy Speaker acts on authority of the Speaker, and his decision to admit or refuse is essentially on the authority of the Rt. Hon. Speaker. Recognising the delegation of this authority accordingly means the two can therefore not be one and the same.
"Rather, to be clear, the Deputy Speaker has not exercised any power reserved solely for the Rt. Hon. Speaker in his capacity as a 1st Deputy Speaker, and therefore has not erred in his conduct as the minority are trying hard to establish," he stated.
There continue to be a raging impasse between the majority and minority over the 2022 budget.
On November 30, 2021, the majority side voted to approve the budget after the minority side had voted to reject it some days earlier.
The minority has since been pushing to have the approval of the budget reversed and have had a motion to that effect dismissed twice by the first deputy speaker, who is sitting in for Speaker Alban Bagbin.
In his ruling dismissing the second motion by the minority, the first deputy speaker cited Order 13(2) of the Standing Orders of Parliament.
But in response, the minority explains that Mr Osei-Owusu had once stated that "a Deputy Speaker is not a Speaker" in his defence for the approval of the budget and overruling a motion to reverse the approval of the 2022 budget.
Thus, according to the minority, Mr Osei-Owusu, as MP for Bekwai, cannot assume the role of the Speaker to refuse its motion.
"In any case, it is most curious that the Standing Order you seek refuge in merely gives you the authority to act in the absence of the Right Honorable Speaker. It is not lost on us that this is the very privilege you recently denounced in your bizarre ruling of December 1 2021, when you stated categorically that you are not a Speaker, you are MP for Bekwai," Minority Leader Haruna Iddrisu stated.
But in his response to the minority, Frank Annoh-Dompreh insisted that the first deputy speaker did not err in his ruling. He further describes the insistence of the minority for an explanation of the acting Speaker's ruling as unfounded.
"More so since no instance of procedure binds him to give reasons for refusing an application for a review of his ruling," he added.
RE:REFUSAL TO ADMIT MOTION
Correspondence between the 1st Dep. Speaker & the Minority Leader is in essence to bring clarity to the substance of the matter. That in my view has very little to do with the error in the date of one letter. Especially since correction has been made.
Read the full post by the Majority Chief Whip below:
RE:REFUSAL TO ADMIT MOTION
Correspondence between the 1st Dep. Speaker & the Minority Leader is in essence to bring clarity to the substance of the matter. That in my view has very little to do with the error in the date of one letter. Especially since correction has been made.
Particularly, it is obvious that the intention to officially register disapproval of a matter competently decided by the Speaker is followed by the expectation that a reconsideration will occur. However, The Deputy Speaker made reference to Order 13(2) to specifically remind the minority of his authority as the 1st Deputy Speaker to deal with the application just as was done, and hence, no such review is a viable course of action against the ruling of the Speaker.
The basic understanding of the matter is found in the realisation of the fact that the 1st Deputy Speaker acts on authority of the Speaker and his decision to admit or refuse is essentially on authority of the Rt. Hon. Speaker. Recognising the delegation of this authority accordingly means the two can therefore not be one and the same.
Rather, to be clear, the Deputy Speaker has not exercised any power reserved solely for the Rt. Hon. Speaker in his capacity as a 1st Deputy Speaker, and therefore has not erred in his conduct as the minority are trying hard to establish.
It is on this same basis that their request for the Deputy Speaker to provide reasons for the refusal of the application is unfounded. More so since no instance of procedure binds the him to give reasons for refusing an application for a review of his ruling.
This is simply another desperate attempt of the minority to extend debate on this matter till the Rt. Hon. Speaker returns, even though the application expired after the decision of the 1st Deputy Speaker.
If the minority wish to further their allegations of a bias ruling, they will soon come to realise that they have no evidence that can be recognised according to our Orders to establish their claims. In all technicality the decision of the Speaker on the application of the minority is primarily valid, and is also not just a decision but a ruling.
We ought to respect it as such.
Let us not forget that their application was particularly to review ruling, and the Speaker recognises that Order 79 et al have no bearing on the Speaker's powers to admit or deny such motion.
Majority Chief Whip Frank Annoh-Dompreh