How can the minority in all sincerity argue that they used a strategy to reject the budget but when the tables are turned, the majority can’t use the same strategy presented to them on a silver platter to overturn the rejection and vote to pass the budget? The argument of the majority was merely academic (budget was rejected and they were looking for ways of re-engaging in order to have a revised budget approved) until the minority gave them the same opportunity by staying outside the chamber to give the majority unfettered access with a “favourable speaker” in the chair. The minority should have gone into the chamber to vote so we had 137-137 which would have meant a draw. The MP sitting as the speaker (though still MP) could not have voted clearly as stated by the constitution.
There would have been a stalemate. MEANING FRIDAY DECISION STANDS, forcing the Minister of Finance into an “uncomfortable negotiations of their lives. When a vote is 137-0 how can you argue that it’s a draw? The speaker then DID NOT need to vote. But his presence as an MP representing his constitution remains and constitution says you required a minimum of 138 MPs in the chamber to take a decision. There was 138. (Minus 1 only for voting NOT PRESENCE) remember, not all decisions are by voting. Some are by consensus and some by mere acclamation. You cannot anticipate that any decisions would be by voting. The minority let the country down. The budget now stands approved with everything that was in it as at Friday. They have lost the opportunity to force concessions from the Finance Minister unless he is magnanimous. The minority argument has now become academic. They clearly opened the door and turned off the security alarm, with their backs to the cctv camera. I am deeply ashamed and troubled. Is this the responsible opposition the nation was looking for and the government in waiting that some citizens were waiting for? If the Finance Minister chooses not to make any changes, he is legally right. Parliament has approved his budget. We have lost our hope of a revision to remove draconian laws. Friday 26th November has become a waste of time and a wasted opportunity. What I don’t understand is why do our elected representatives always believe that the best way to represent our interest as constituents is to boycott parliamentary proceedings and vote? You represent us better by engaging, debating, and voting. Even if you lose the vote, your concerns are noted in the parliamentary Hansard for posterity. NOT A BOYCOTT
Are they now going to heard to the Supreme Court when they have been arguing since Friday that as an equal arm of government, the Supreme Court cannot tell parliament what to do?
THE JOKE THAT IS GHANA IS NO LONGER FUNNY. K Kakraba Pratt.