Mr Speaker, I have already withdrawn “rubbished” and substituted it with “rejected”.
Mr Speaker, the same application has been made again, and I call for you to rule that application completely out of order. Mr Speaker, with your permission, Standing Order 81 provides:
“Unless otherwise provided in these Orders, every motion unless made at the Second Reading or Consideration Stage of a Bill, must be seconded, and if not seconded shall not be debated or entered in the Votes and Proceedings.”
Mr Speaker, the Motion has not even been moved. The person is in the process of moving the Motion, and it must be seconded. Once, it is seconded, one could come in with his or her application; but if
the Motion has not been moved, the person is in the process of doing so and one submits an application, Mr Speaker, at that stage, he is completely out of tune with our processes.
Mr Speaker, in any event, since he cites examples -- [Interruption.] -- Mr Speaker, since he has related to a precedent, let me walk him through the precedents in this House. In considering the prior approval of Hon Mohammed Mumuni in this House, the matter was before court. At the time, the immediate past Speaker of Parliament was the Hon Chairman of the Appointments Committee.
The matter was submitted before the Appointments Committee, and he ruled at the Appointments Committee that the matter could continue.
Mr Speaker, in the matter of the STX debate in this House, after the Motion had been moved, the then Speaker, Madam Justice Bamford- Addo, to whom the matter had come from the Supreme Court, did not accept it. She said that in her opinion, Parliament could go on; and Parliament indeed went on.
Mr Speaker, in the matter of Constitutional Instrument (C.I.) 73, the matter had gone to the Supreme Court for adjudication. Hon Dr Matthew Opoku Prempeh drew attention to this in the House, but the then presiding officer, Madam Bamford-Addo, said the matter could not obstruct Parliament from doing what she deemed was right.
Mr Speaker, in any event, even in the current application -- the submission to the court is that even if Parliament went ahead to approve it, and in the wisdom of the Supreme Court they felt that the matter was not right and they ruled, whatever Parliament did would then be considered
as null and void. Mr Speaker, it is part of the application. So, why this?
Mr Speaker, I submit that this application is a complete abuse of the processes of this House. Anytime anybody feels aggrieved and a matter is before the House, that person would then run to the Supreme Court and tie the hands of this House from considering that point. Mr Speaker, that cannot be right.
Mr Speaker, our Standing Orders provide, and with your permission the Order that he himself quoted, Order 93 says :
“(1) 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. . .”
I thank you very much.