Speaker dismisses Minority’s motion on Merchant Bank-Fortiz deal
The Speaker of Parliament, Mr Edward Doe Adjaho, Monday dismissed a private member’s motion filed by the Member of Parliament (MP) for Bimbilla, Mr Dominic Nitiwul, requesting Parliament to investigate the offer and acquisition of Merchant Bank by Fortiz Equity Fund Limited and other matters.
Advertisement
In his 15-minute ruling, he said since the case was currently before a court any discussion in the House would prejudice the case. He, therefore, ruled the motion filed by Mr Nitiwul “out of order.”
He said when the motion was brought to his attention, he delegated the Clerk at the Table Office to conduct investigations into the matter.
The clerk, he said, reported to him that apart from the notice of appeal filed at the Court of Appeal, there were three other cases on the same issue pending before the superior courts of judicature.
According to Mr Adjaho, the motion filed by the MP for Bimbilla was not just making reference to a matter which was before the courts but actually calling for investigations.
Using references from other jurisdictions, including rules of the Commonwealth on the proper relation which should exist between the Legislature and the Judiciary, he said the two needed to treat each other with mutual respect. The subjudice rule, he said, guarded against interference by the Legislature in cases before the Judiciary. Quoting other rules and laws from other jurisdictions, he said when a case was pending before the court, it should not be discussed in a manner that would prejudice the case.
He agreed that the matter brought before the House was of public interest but said he could not fathom a situation where the movers of the motion could articulate their views without touching on the material issues before the court and, thereby, prejudice the case.
“I am yet to come across a situation where both Parliament and the Judiciary address a case simultaneously,” he said and asked, “What if Parliament comes to a decision contrary to the one arrived at by the courts?”
Other Trending Stories
Cheers and shouts of disapproval
Mr Adjaho’s ruling, as expected, was met with cheers of approval by the Majority and jeers by the Minority.
Earlier, the Leader of the Majority, Dr Benjamin Kunbuor, had sought guidance from the Speaker on the propriety of considering the motion. He was of the view that the motion offended Standing Order 93 (1) of the House.
The order states that : “Reference shall not be made to any matter on which judicial decision is pending in such a way as may, in the opinion of Mr Speaker, prejudice the interest of parties to the action.”
Dr Kunbour argued that due to the pendency of the matter, it was important to put aside the request for an enquiry until the matter was determined by the courts. But the Leader of the Minority, Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu, shot back, saying the Order 93 (1) stipulated that reference should not be made to a case pending before the court in such a way that it prejudiced the action of the parties.
He wondered how the majority could “jump the gun” and assume that some prejudicial statements could be made in the contributions of members on the Fortiz and Merchant Bank case.
“We have not even moved the motion and someone is assuming that the statements would be prejudicial,” he said.
The Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Domonic Ayine, cautioned the House against considering the motion, saying the house was bound by its own standing orders. He could not see how a discussion on the issue could take place without reference to the pendency of the matter before the High Court and the Court of Appeal. If the Speaker permitted the motion, he said, it would affect “institutional balance” as required by the 1992 Constitution. He also said there were lessons from other jurisdictions that the House could take a cue from.
The MP for Sekondi, Papa Owusu Ankomah, disagreed with both Dr Kunbuor and Dr Ayine. He said Order 93 (1) did not state that Parliament could not comment on issues before a law court. So long as the discussions did not prejudice the case, in his opinion, Parliament would not be contravening any law.
“Parliament should not consider Order 93 (1) as limiting its powers to discuss the matter. If we do that it would be dangerous. We should be extremely slow in tying our hands in matters of this nature; public interest overrides every other thing”, he said.
Mr Cletus Avoka, (NDC, Zebilla) also said the discussion of the issue would undermine the court’s judgement.
“Let us give the opportunity to the court to decide this matter. We should not set ourselves on a collision course with the judiciary,” he said, adding “It will not be in the interest of mother Ghana.”
After listening to both sides of the argument, the Speaker suspended sitting for an hour, after which he made his ruling.
Advertisement
Recall of House
The House was recalled from its Christmas break following the filing of the memorandum by Mr Nitiwul.
The memorandum, dated December 11, was signed by 107 Minority members of the House .
This represents 38.9 per cent of the total number of MPs, which is well above the constitutional requirement of 15 per cent.
In the memorandum, Mr Nitiwul sought to have the Governor of the Bank of Ghana and the Chairman of the Board of the Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT) invited to the House to answer questions pertaining to the Fortiz and Merchant Bank deal.
Advertisement