Minority describing Supreme Court ruling as E-levy unfortunate — Kyei Mensah-Bonsu

The Minority Leader Haruna Iddrisu after judgment said the Supreme Court's ruling is judicial support for the controversial E-levy.

According to him, the Supreme Court's decision is also a travesty of parliamentary justice.

"The decision of the Supreme Court of Ghana amounts to judicial interference in a time-tested parliamentary practice and established conventions.

"Everywhere in the world, in civilised democracies, including the United Kingdom, the presiding officer's vote is discounted, so, it's not for nothing that Article 102 provides that ‘A person presiding shall have no original nor casting vote," Haruna Iddrisu said.

He added: "the ruling by the apex court is a "judicial support for E-levy and nothing more, judicial support for a struggling economy in distress and a judicial support for the restoration of a matter that they have said is constitutional; it’s repugnant to the provisions of Articles 102 and 104."

He maintained that "this is a travesty of parliamentary justice and a stab in the growth and development of multiparty constitutional democracy built on the spirit of checks and balances."

Haruna Iddrisu Pulse Ghana

But Osei Kyei Mensah-Bonsu addressing the press in Parliament on Thursday, March 10, 2022, said "It is most unfortunate for anybody to say that the Supreme Court ruling is E-levy tailored.

"The matter was sent to the Supreme Court before the E-levy became an issue. If you will remember, it was in July, in the vote for the approval or non-approval of the budget when the NDC said that they had used 137 numbers to reject the budget on Friday and we came on Tuesday, November, to say no, what they did was unconstitutional because they required at least one half.

"137, less than one-half of the 275 membership. We came back and did what was right using the 138 numbers to approve the budget and economic policy of the government. That was what triggered this whole business of going to court to seek interpretation. On that day it was the 1st Deputy Speaker who presided and he signaled that he was entitled to vote even though when it came to the voting he abstained. So that is it, it had nothing to do with the E-levy."