March 9, 2022
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, exercising original jurisdiction under Articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the 1992 Constitution, resolved constitutional questions arising from two closely linked parliamentary sittings on the 2022 Budget. On 26 November 2021, with 137 members present and the Speaker presiding, the Speaker declared the budget rejected after a voice vote. On 30 November 2021, with the Speaker absent and the First Deputy Speaker presiding, the Majority sought to set aside the rejection; the First Deputy Speaker counted himself for quorum (138 present) but did not vote and declared the motion carried, approving the budget. The plaintiff challenged whether a presiding Deputy Speaker could be counted for the Article 104(1) voting quorum and whether he could vote. Interpreting Articles 102 and 104, the Court held that a presiding Deputy Speaker counts toward the voting quorum and retains a vote; it struck down Standing Order 109(3) as unconstitutional and affirmed the validity of the 30 November approval.
KULENDI JSC:-
I. INTRODUCTION
This action invokes our original jurisdiction pursuant to Article 2(1){b) and 130(1)(a) of the Constitution to challenge the constitutionality or otherwise of recent going-ons in Parliament, one of the three arms of government, and by implication, the constitutionality or otherwise of one of Parliament's internal rules for the conduct of its business.
We wish to start by reminding ourselves of the dicta of an illustrious jurist, as follows:
"...where it is alleged before the Supreme Court that any organ of Government or an institution is acting in violation of a provision of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is duty bound by articles 2(1) and 130(1) to exercise jurisdiction, unless the Constitution has provided a specific remedy... no individual nor creature of the Constitution is exempted from the enforcement provision of article 2 thereof. No one is above the law. And no action of any individual or institution under the Constitution is immune from judicial scrutiny if the constitutionality of such an action is challenged."
Per Acquah JSC (as he then was) in Martin AlamisiAmidu v. President Kuffour and the Attorney General(2001-2002) SCGLR 138.
I. BACKGROUND
The antecedents, as presented by the parties, upon which the instant action is
premised are as follows:
On the 26th of November 2021, when Parliament sat to approve the 2022 Budget
Statement, the Minister for Finance requested Parliament to suspend the approval
process of the Budget to give the Executive an opportunity to engage the parliamentary leadership over the introduction of the Electronic Transactions Levy (E-Levy) outlined in the Budget. The Speaker subjected the request for suspension to a voice vote and ruled that those against the prayer had prevailed over those in favour.
In a challenge to the ruling of the Speaker, the Majority asked that the vote be re-taken by division. Before the re-voting, the Majority walked out from the Chamber in protestof the exclusion of the Minister for Finance from the Chamber before the vote. After a short suspension of sitting, the Speaker returned to continue with the business of the House in the absence of the Majority. With 137 members present, the Speaker put the question for approval of the 2022 Budget to a voice vote. Following the voice vote, the Speaker ruled that the motion had been lost and the Budget rejected.
On 30th November, 2021, when the House reconvened, the Majority was in the Chamber but this ti