The First Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Joseph Osei-Owusu, is at the throat of his boss, the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, throwing acerbic words at him, including calling the third powerful man in the country an “epitome of intolerance”.
The two are haggling over attempt to probe the government’s COVID-19 expenditure, which has been ridden with massive corruption, including the controversial Sputnik V vaccine deal last year, in which many Ghanaians, such as civil society organizations and anti-corruption bodies, demanded that President Akufo-Addo sacked the Health Minister, Kwaku Agyeman Manu.
The President, rather joked about the demand while at Domfete in the Berekum West District of the Bono Region on Tuesday, August 10, 2021, describing Agyeman Manu as a vilified minister.
“The number of Bono people in my government, if I say I will speak about it, I will speak all day long, there are a lot of them. The Minister of Health that is being backlashed here and there today, Dormaa native Agyeman Manu, has suffered at the health ministry and he is still suffering,” he said whiles laughing.
Mr Bagbin, had told the Bekwai Member of Parliament (MP) nicknamed “Joewise” that his attitude of dismissing a decision he, Mr Bagbin has taken was illegal and offensive.
But Mr Osei-Owusu, fired back in a statement over the weekend, saying “Mr. Speaker’s last description of my ruling as illegal, unconstitutional and offensive is most unfortunate and epitome of intolerance of different views”.
He said the recent comment by Mr Bagbin on his conduct sets a dangerous path for Ghana’s democracy.
“To say that my ruling is offensive, illegal or unconstitutional because he would have ruled differently is, in my view, a rather dangerous approach to democracy.”
“Mr Speaker’s last description of my ruling as illegal, unconstitutional and offensive is most unfortunate and epitome of intolerance of different views,” he added.
Agyeman Manu, was last year condemned after he admitted breaching the procurement deal seeking to secure the Sputnik V vaccines aside from the illegal payment of more than US$2.8 million to Sheikh Ahmed Dalmook Al Maktoum for the Sputnik V vaccine.
It was realized that the cost of the Vaccine, had been inflated and Ghana was buying the vaccine from a third party, rather than from the manufacturers.
As the controversy raged, the Ministry of Health stated that Sheikh Ahmed Dalmook Al Maktoum, had agreed to refund $2,470,000 paid by the government to supply 300,000 doses of Sputnik COVID-19 vaccines.
A letter from the Ministry said: “The Private Officer of His Highness, per the correspondence, has honourably agreed to refund an amount of $2,470,000 being the balance left on the 50% advance payment of $2,850,000.”
On Wednesday, the Speaker, took on his first deputy, over the latter’s decision to dismiss a private member’s motion seeking to probe the government’s COVID-19 expenditure insisting that such actions are illegal and offensive and must not reoccur, especially when he had already admitted the motion.
Bagbin, said despite his disapproval of Joe Osei-Owusu’s ruling, he will not take steps to reverse it.
“The penchant of the First Deputy Speaker [Joe Osei-Owusu] to overrule my ruling is, to say the least, unconstitutional, illegal, and offensive. Be that as it may, I shall not be taking any steps to overrule the decision of the First Deputy Speaker to dismiss the motion as moved by the Hon. Ranking Member of the Finance Committee,” he said.
But Joe Osei-Owusu in his statement, expressed his reservation about the Speaker’s position.
According to him, the speaker did not rule on the motion. He said at the time the speaker was exiting the chair, an objection was raised against the motion, which required that the arguments from both sides be listened to, and a decision given, which he did in favour of those against the motion.
“After I heard the arguments from the proponent of the motion and the adversaries, I was convinced that the objection was well-placed, and I, therefore, sustained it. It was never a review of any decision earlier taken by Mr. Speaker to admit the motion to set up a special committee, as he seems to suggest in his formal communication,” Mr. Osei-Owusu noted in a statement.
He strongly expressed the view that he as a Deputy Speaker of Parliament or any member, while presiding “exercises the same powers and applies the same Standing Orders and Constitutional provisions to manage the House while on the Chair. It is not the case of the President and his Vice, as Mr. Speaker suggests.”
“Mr Speaker’s last description of my ruling as illegal, unconstitutional and offensive is most unfortunate and epitome of intolerance of different views,” he added.
He charged that “all the committees of the house including the Public Accounts Committee are bipartisan, and the Public Accounts Committee is designed by nature to be chaired by members of the Minority.“
“In all its form, the Public Accounts Committee, if it is minded to investigate anything related to the Covid-19 expenditure, fully sees to the authority and power to investigate that, particularly because all the accounting of it has been provided for in the budget which budget has been provided by the House and is before the committee.
“My view is that this motion ought not to have been admitted, and it’s improperly before the House.”
Although Mr Bagbin had assured that the two of them will meet and find a way out in order to prevent this development for recurring, his deputy has gone firing on all cylinders.
He wrote that “On Wednesday, 23rd February, Mr. Speaker once again issued one such “formal” communication by Mr Speaker”. In the said formal communication, Mr Speaker purported to comment on the “error” which, in his view, I committed when I permitted the Deputy Majority Leader to raise a preliminary objection to a Motion Mr Speaker had earlier admitted and which was advertised on the Order Paper for the 23rd of February.
“Mr Speaker’s complaint is that I should not have allowed the motion to be moved after same had been seconded but rather I should have allowed it to be moved before the motion he had earlier admitted was seconded, I have read that Mr Speaker said that he had directed and actually instructed me, to allow the Deputy Leader to move his motion before it was seconded. Whilst I do not doubt Mr Speaker’s statement, I must confess that I heard otherwise and I indeed so ruled, and stated that the objection be moved after secondment.
“But, Mr Speaker did not end it at pointing out my purported miscommunication or misapprehension of his “order” rather, he continued to comment on what he says has become the penchant of the honourable First Deputy Speaker to overrule my rulings is to say the least, unconstitutional, illegal and offensive.’
“This is where I find Mr Speaker’s ‘communication’ to the House most unfair and totally un-reflective of my conduct as the First Deputy Speaker in the 7th and 8th Parliament.
“Mr Speaker proceeded to cite as an example, my ruling on the motion by the Majority to declare the purported vote to reject the 2022 budget by 137 of the 275 Member House of Parliament as falling short of the number required to take a decision and therefore unconstitutional, null and void. In fact, in his statement from the Chair, subsequent to that ruling, he described my conduct as tantamount to in-subordination.
“On that occasion I characteristically elected not to comment on Mr Speaker’s statement in public in order not to create the impression that there’s tension between him and his Deputy.
“There is however no doubt that in putting the question when the record showed that there were less than half of all members of Parliament in the chamber Mr speaker had contravened Order 109(1)of the Standing Orders and more importantly Art 104(1) of the 1992 Constitution. The purported decision of the house was a nullity and I rightly so declared it.”
