Former President John Mahama has recommended the applicant in the Supreme Court judgement on the Deputy Speaker’s authority to vote during proceedings to appeal.
He couldn’t see how the Deputy Speaker may have dual voting rights while presiding over a session in the Chamber, he says.
“In most situations, the first vote in Parliament on a motion is a voice vote. The Presiding officer, whether the Speaker or one of his or her deputy speakers, is responsible for determining which is the loudest, the ayes or the nays.
“If the deputy speakers are permitted to vote, they must participate in the voice vote first. How do you impartially assess which was the loudest if you are presiding and can shout aye or nay with your party in a voice vote?” the former President said in a Facebook post on Sunday.
He also questioned the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision, saying that the decision “is driving us into the region of nonsense.”
“What is the Supreme Court’s decision?” That in a voice vote, deputy speakers might yell aye or nay with the side they agree or disagree with? The SC is taking us down a rabbit hole of ridiculousness! This decision is disappointing, and I hope the applicant will seek a review of the decision,” he stated.
