The Minority in Parliament has described the passage of the Electronic Transfers Levy (E-levy) by the Majority in Parliament as illegal and unconstitutional, weighing it on the scale of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 104 of the constitution.
According to the minority, the one-sided Parliament which passed the controversial levy did not have the quorum to undertake the passage of the bill since their side staged a walkout even before the consideration stage of the bill.
“The constitution provides that a bill is subjected to third reading. This E-levy Bill was subjected to a third reading with less than one half of the members of Parliament present and voting.
“When they were told that the ruling of the Supreme Court was absurdity, many of you didn’t appreciate it, now they will appreciate it… It means that you needed at least 138 for decision, on any decision, whether on amendment, whether on third reading”.
“We are convinced that there is no E-levy and it’s walking on nothing…Parliament did not have the numbers to take any decision that should bind Parliament and the Ghanaian people”, the minority averred.
The majority leader, Osei Kyei Mensah Bonsu, addressing the press after the passage of the bill, said the passage of the bill was in the favour of the country.
“We have done what is good for the country”, he said.
The minority also put on record that at the Committee level of the E-levy bill, they did not vote in support of the levy. “It took the chairman of the Committee a casting vote for us to lose at the level of the Committee”, Haruna Iddrisu said.
Addressing the press, the minority leader, Haruna Iddrisu revealed they had only 136 of their members present in Parliament due to the requirement of the presence of the Assin North MP, James Gyakye Quayson in court today.
“This morning, we walked in (Parliamentary chamber) with some difficulty because of the matter of the Assin North. He was essentially in court and therefore as a minority, at that material point in time we were 136”.
He revealed that lawyers for the embattled legislator for Assin Central were supposed to file a Stay of execution after the Appeal Court struck out his appeal for failing to file his Written Submission within 21 days as stipulated by the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 (C.I 19) 20 (1) and (2).
Source: opemsuo.com/Hajara Fuseini