Yaw Buaben Asamoa, the communications director of the governing New Patriotic Party (NPP) has said the continuous outburst by former President John Mahama on the declaration by the Supreme Court that Deputy Speakers can be counted and vote on issues while presiding is frustrating.

According to him, Mahama is a “desperate individual” who wants to win power by any means possible but does not have any new policies to convince Ghanaians.

“This is a desperate individual who is seeking a position without any new policies or options to offer. I find his comments demeaning of a statesman who seeks to lead the country. Because you’re [Mahama] denigrating the country’s image abroad and yet you seek to lead it. You’re not just denigrating in charge; you’re attacking the basic of every democracy; that’s the judiciary,” Asamoa told Asaase News‘ Gemma Appiah.

“We [NPP] have consistently rebutted and it’s sad that we have to keep coming back to this same old funny allegation which makes no difference to our political wellbeing and he keeps going about it so, it’s frustrating.

“…He wants to be President without an agenda, he wants to be President without a well thought through process that defines him better than before. He wants to be a President but he doesn’t have a platform. So, he is seeking to use lies and half-truths to establish a platform but those things don’t go far,” Asamoa added.

SC’s ruling on Deputy Speakers “most absurd decision”
Former President John Mahama said the Supreme Court’s declaration that Deputy Speakers can be counted and vote on issues while presiding is creating problems in Parliament.

Describing the decision as absurd, the former president argues the judges who delivered the ruling do not understand the conventions of Parliament.

“They went to the Supreme Court and went and got a verdict that says the Deputy Speakers presiding have the right to vote, you know, it’s the most absurd decision,” Mahama told members of the NDC in the US over the weekend.

“And it was 7-0 again unanimous and I don’t think that the judges understand the convention in Parliament. You know, in most motions we carry in Parliament the first vote is a voice vote, and so the Speaker puts the question as many are in favour say I and as many as are against say no.

“…Let assume that he comes from that party, it means that he must take part in the voice vote, so I am presiding and then I put the question, as many as are in favour say I, then I shout ‘I’ with my party, as many as are in favour again say no, and then I listen to the nos.

“How can you give an impartial verdict, it’s like a referee in your own match, referee and player at the same time, but there are many other things that will create a problem, and already we are beginning to see it with the quorum issues and all that….”