Bagbin’s Principled Position you need to know: My Little Opinion

And the composition of the House, with 137 apiece from the two major political parties; National Democratic Congress (NDC) and New Patriotic Party (NPP) with one independent candidate who has elected to do business with the NPP side given them a majority, compounds the challenge the Speaker has to scale.

Fortunately, he has experience at his side to guide him. What is however not clear to him is that, he is facing a very unprecedented situation of a House divided equally among itself.

With an imperative, which bars the Speaker from being partisan, his association with the NDC must not be seen openly in all his conduct of the affairs of Parliament. Placing partisan interest above his duty means being openly bias. And it is important to note that partisanship, if it can be established on the side of the Speaker, is sufficient ground for his impeachment. This is further fortified with the Constitutional dictate under Article 97(1)(b) which states “A member of Parliament shall vacate his seat in Parliament if he is elected as Speaker of Parliament”. A Member of Parliament is a partisan representative of the/a people. By this imperative, the partisan nature of the Speaker is arrested, requiring him to be fair to all manner of persons and all sides of the House and by extension, all members of Parliament.

However, we cannot put the political affiliation of the Speaker away. Most of his predecessors were known to have been members of specific political parties. Many have interpreted controversial issues that came before them with the interest of their parties in the centre. But, to the extent that they have not been taken on, it doesn’t mean the current Speaker cannot be taken on if such partisanship is cited, especially considering the posturing of the current Majority side. As to whether they would get the numbers if such an impeachment process is commenced, is another matter. However, that would add to his record.

These complexities must inform our assessment of the Speaker Bagbin. He is ready to establish a unique record as Speaker, but within a very polarised political environment. Even though the outcome of the 2020 election sent a specific message for consensus building in Parliament, the House has seen scheming, or say planning, and execution of strategies by both parties to undo one another, and the passage of the 2022 budget and that of the Electronic Levy popularly known as E-Levy, gives us an indication that the House is not yielding to the calls to work together.

The principled stance of the Speaker on certain matters, may take a longer time, sometimes beyond his lifetime for people to appreciate. And I would demonstrate that and proceed to outline the challenges that the Speaker would face, and the supporters of the party he belongs, the NDC, may not really be happy with him.

1. You recall how the 2022 budget was rejected even when the Majority side decided to walk out. We remember how the issue of quorum was played out the subsequent week resulting in the NPP side setting aside the decision reached when Speaker Bagbin presided over the House, to pass the rejected budget. Upon the return of the Speaker, he had a clear mind that what his Deputy presided over subsequently which resulted in the passage of the budget which was early rejected, was not right, and he stated that forcefully.

But, he chose not to go back to the issue. And this was his position, which was the principle he established. It was the position of the Speaker that absence in the House didn’t mean not being in Parliament. He holds that the works of an MP is not only limited to their participation in debate in the Chamber, and so to the extent that the MP is within the House of Parliament, that MP is therefore present. As a result, he could not come to terms with the fact that sitting and participating in a debate and only walking out makes the then Majority side absent and did not form part of the quorum for the decision.

The invitation of the courts in this matter is what makes this matter more complex. The issue of quorum has since become contentious, and we have all witnessed how a few weeks ago, the question of quorum was raised which ended Sittings sometimes as early as 11am.

2. Then the recent passage of the controversial E-Levy. The Minority side, after participating in the debate, decided to walk out of the Chamber. The decision was however reached by the 137 Members present on the side of the NPP. In the estimation of the Minority, the 137 Members from the NPP who sat in the Chamber to approve the Levy, did not form “…majority of members present and voting…” which is dictated in Article 104(1) of the Constitution 1992.

And this is where another principle of the Speaker is tested. Under point 1, the Speaker holds that the presence of Members in the House of Parliament is sufficient to record a member as present, much more when the person reports to the Chamber to participate in a debate. Should the Speaker be caught interpreting the issues differently when the NPP acted in their walkout from when the NDC walked out? A principled person can only have one position.

Standing with what the NPP side did in the budget issue, means standing with the NDC. But when he disagreed with what the NPP side did in the budget case, can he agree with what the NDC side did in the E-Levy case? That is where a principled man is called upon to stand by his previous position.

And for me, I can see a very strong character in the Speaker. When the Supreme Court decided to stand in the matter earlier, it therefore must stand in the current one and make us understand what these two actions really meant.