Razak Kojo Opoku, an activist of the New Patriotic Party has opined that the decision by the Speaker of Parliament to act on a petition submitted by the owners of the defunct UT Bank and Unibank is a slap in the face of the principle of separation of powers.

Bagbin, amid protest by the Majority Leader, Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu has instructed that a seven-member bi-partisan committee be formed to probe the circumstance that led to the revocation of the licenses of the two banks.

Kyei-Mensah’s opposition to the move by the Speaker was based on the fact that there are cases pending before the courts on the collapse of the two banks.

He furthered that “I expressed my opinion, I said to the Speaker that I disagree with the recourse that he is resorting to because a matter is before the Court. The Court has not exhausted the processes and the cases are being heard by the Court and from the Court, the two people run to Parliament to seek cover and petition Parliament.”

In a Facebook post, Razak Kojo Opoku made similar observations and questioned the logic in forming a committee whose works could clash with that of the court.

“The issue of Unibank and UT Bank is at the court. I don't understand how and why the Speaker of Parliament, Hon. Alban Bagbin, wants a parliamentary committee to be formed to investigate the issues of these banks, which are before the court of competent jurisdiction?”

He also raised a number of questions with the step taking by Alban Bagbin and argued why the Speaker is setting a bad a precedent.

“Hon. Alban Bagbin once said that "we have 3 equal independent arms of government" Then why is the Speaker of Parliament rushing to do things which could undermine the decision of the court?”

“Respectively, Hon. Alban Bagbin may be setting a very dangerous precedent by pitching the Legislature against the Judiciary with these actions

“What prevents owners of collapsed banks to seek redress at the Appeals Court or Supreme Court if they are not satisfied with the final determination of the case?” he said.

Read the full post below

Speaker of Parliament Must Respect the Court:Razak Kojo Opoku Writes

This country’s 1992 Constitution is based on a quasi-executive presidential system of government. This is underpinned by the principle of separation of powers.

Executive power is vested in the President, legislative power in Parliament, and Judicial power in the judiciary.

By the functions of various arms of government in Ghana, Parliament enacts laws, and the judiciary interprets the laws.

The issue of Unibank and UT Bank is at the court. I don't understand how and why the Speaker of Parliament, Hon. Alban Bagbin, wants a parliamentary committee to be formed to investigate the issues of these banks, which are before the court of competent jurisdiction?

A million-dollar question on the lips of many today is does the Speaker of Parliament want to undermine the court?

Where is the separation of Powers?

Hon. Alban Bagbin once said that "we have 3 equal independent arms of government" Then why is the Speaker of Parliament rushing to do things which could undermine the decision of the court?

Respectively, Hon. Alban Bagbin may be setting a very dangerous precedent by pitching the Legislature against the Judiciary with these actions.

What prevents owners of collapsed banks to seek redress at the Appeals Court or Supreme Court if they are not satisfied with the final determination of the case?

Is Parliament now an Appeals Court or Supreme Court? Absolutely no.

Again, why Hon. Alban Bagbin totally silent over UT Petition but quick to act on Unibank? Is it because the owner(s) of Unibank is a known NDC member?

Why Hon. Alban Bagbin not giving the same level of attention to other issues citizens of this country have petitioned Parliament to investigate?

Hon. Alban Bagbin, these legitimate questions are haunting us. Any answers?