Speaker Annan’s Ruling On Hackman Owusu-Agyeman’s ‘First Urgent Motion’ For A Probe As Read In Parliament On December 10, 1998!
The New Crusading GUIDE continues its play-back of statements, reactions and publications relative to the infamous “$5m Abacha improper payment” to President J.J. Rawlings in November 1996; a story which was first broken by Nigerian newspaper, POST EXPRESS in October/November 1998, and further boosted by the Agence France Press (AFP) to the international community.
Today’s play-back focuses on the Ruling the then Rt. Hon. Speaker of Parliament, Justice D.F. Annan made in relation to the ‘first urgent motion’ submitted to him (The Speaker) in November 1998. The Speaker’s Ruling came almost a month after the submission of the ‘first urgent motion’, and was read by him to the hearing of the entire House. That was the first time in the history of the 4th Republican Parliament that a Speaker’s Ruling had been formally written and read in that manner!
Mr. Hackman Owusu-Agyeman, not satisfied with the Speaker’s December 9, 1998 Ruling not to admit the motion, subsequently on same day December 9, 1998, submitted a “substantive urgent motion” challenging the Ruling of the Speaker not to admit the “first urgent motion”, and called on the House to urge “The Right Hon. Speaker to review his decision not to admit the urgent motion on the setting up of a Board of Enquiry to look into the allegation of improper payment to the President by the government of former Nigerian Head of State, General Sani Abacha…”
Stay tuned for how the Speaker and Members of Parliament (The House) reacted to Hackman Owusu-Agyeman’s “Second Urgent (substantive motion)” on December 10, 1998 in our subsequent play-back of the infamous $5m Abacha ‘improper payment’ to Mr. Jerry John Rawlings.
THE PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA
THIRD MEETING, 1998
Thursday, 10th December, 1998
The House met at 11.05 a.m.
(MR. SPEAKER IN THE CHAIR)
PRAYERS
(The Votes and Proceedings were corrected)
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, yesterday I gave an indication that I would make my ruling on the “Urgent Motion” submitted to me sometime ago by the hon. Member for New Juaben North (Mr. Hackman Owusu-Agyemang) and I have done so. And I have submitted a copy of my written reasons for refusing to admit the motion to the hon. Member concerned. If the House so wishes I propose to read the ruling. It is only one page.
SPEAKER’S RULING
The motion in connection with which this ruling is being made was submitted to my office in the following terms:
“Urgent Motion”
That this House views with concern the recent allegations in the press and media of improper payment to the President by the Government of the late General Sani Abacha of Nigeria, which allegations have found their way onto the Internet and International Press.
That considering the seriousness of the allegations which seek to bring the high office of the President into disrepute, this House take steps to safeguard the integrity of the Presidency and the image of the country by requesting the Government to set up a high-powered independent Board of Enquiry to determine the veracity or otherwise of the allegation”.
11.15 a.m.
The motion stands in the name of hon. Hackman Owusu-Agyemang, Member of Parliament for New Juaben North. And this is what I have decided in respect of this motion:
I have had a certain amount of difficulty in coming to a decision whether or not to admit this motion. On the one hand I did not want to deny any Member or party in this House the opportunity to be heard in the House and to call for action on a matter that ought to be debated in the House. On the other hand, having regard to this particular proposal and the course of action envisaged therein, I have felt the need to satisfy myself that this is a proper case to be admitted for debate on the floor of the House. I have in this respect guarded against making any judgement on the merits of the matter. Such a judgement falls exclusively within the authority of the House.
IN CONSIDERING WHETHER OR NOT TO ADMIT THIS MOTION, I HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE REPORTS BEING RELIED UPON TO ACTIVATE PROCEEDINGS BY WAY OF A MOTION, NAMELY, NEWSPAPER REPORTS, AMOUNT IN MY OPINION AT THE PRESENT TIME, TO LITTLE BETTER THAN RUMOURS, HAVING REGARD TO THE PAUCITY OF MATERIAL EVIDENCE OF ANY WEIGHT OFFERED IN SUPPORT OF, OR TO LEND SOME CREDENCE TO THESE MEDIA REPORTS. I TAKE THE POSITION THAT IN ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND HAVING REGARD TO WHAT INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE, AS AT NOW, IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, TO DEBATE THIS MOTION AT THE PRESENT TIME WOULD OFFER SOME CREDIBILITY TO A MATTER THAT ON THE STATED FACTS, WOULD SEEM TO AMOUNT TO NOTHING MORE THAN SPECULATIVE REPORTING.
This motion could constitute a precedent for starting a debate in the House in the absence of a credible basis for invoking the authority of the House. I would like to observe that House procedures other than by way of a motion would offer more appropriate responses at this point in time for the purpose of addressing the concerns which no doubt inform the request to set up an enquiry into these allegations.
I, accordingly, rule that no proper foundation has been laid by the proponents of this motion to enable them to pursue the course of action contemplated in the motion and they can therefore not proceed with it until such time as more material become available to justify the course of action proposed therein (uproar. ) Order! Rulings of the House are to be heard in perfect silence and anybody who raises his or her voice is out of order. I have served a copy of this ruling on the proponent of the motion.
<<Print>>