Lawyer who challenged Deputy Speakers’ voting rights still considering review option

Lawyer who challenged Deputy Speakers’ voting rights still considering review option
Mahama Ayariga

Member of Parliament for Bawku Central, Mahama Ayariga, says the Ghana Revenue Authority
(GRA), the Telecommunication Chamber and other stakeholders should halt their preparations for the implementation of the E-levy. According to him, he’s certain the Supreme Court will quash the bill before any such implementation in May.

The GRA and the Telecommunication Chamber have been working together to set up a portal that will enable the smooth operation of the E-levy when finally enforced. According to CEO of the Telecommunication Chamber, Ken Ashigbey, the technical experts from the GRA have been working on the project; however, it’s not clear if it will be ready before May. The portal will among other things allow the revenue generator to establish which funds are being sent to tax exempted electronic platforms like and which are not.

However, reacting to the information on JoyNews’ PM Express, Mahama Ayariga urged them to stop wasting their time. He strongly believes the bill will be quashed and thus, there will be no need for the creation of the said platform any longer. “Yes it has to. The Supreme Court has to annul the decision. I mean I heard the GRA and etc discussing implementation, I think they should not waste their time because I mean the Supreme Court is going to be very clear because it would be difficult in my opinion in less than a month or two for the Supreme Court to be speaking from different sides of its mouth. So ‘yeah we said that you need 138 but 138 doesn’t mean 138’,” he said.

His strong belief comes from the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Justice Abdulai case concerning quorum. “If it was a standing order or just an ordinary decision of the Speaker or a decision of the House, that doesn’t bother on constitutionality, the proper place would have been to go for a motion for rescission.

“But this is an enforcement of a provision of the constitution that has just been recently interpreted and we see it being violated. So we’re going back to the Supreme Court and say ‘look, you recently said that to take a decision there must be 138 people present. “We have evidence to show that it was decision time and we didn’t have 138 people present and a decision was being taken and the process went through. You tell us what should be the necessary implication,’” he

Spread the love