Thaddeus Sory, legal representative for the Speaker of Parliament
The legal representative for the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, has criticized a plaintiff who recently took the Speaker to the Supreme Court, according to an Adomonline.com report.
According to the report, Thaddeus Sory has dismissed the plaintiff’s efforts as both futile and self-defeating.
The case involved a parliamentary precedent enforced by Bagbin, which the plaintiff argued disrupted Parliament’s operations.
He pointed out that Bagbin’s predecessor had applied this same precedent without controversy.
“The Speaker’s predecessor applied the precedent, and all and sundry accepted it without cavil. The present Speaker applied the same precedent, and the temperature in the country is taken to fever pitch,” he said.
Criticizing the plaintiff’s approach, Bagbin’s lawyer highlighted the apparent contradiction in the plaintiff’s stance.
According to him, after celebrating the court’s decision as a win for democracy, the plaintiff later sought the Speaker’s intervention to recall Parliament.
“Now the victor does not intend to use the Supreme Court’s power to compel the Speaker… Now the Speaker is seen, I may now say with a smile, respected, as the final authority to decide matters relating to Parliament.”
He likened the plaintiff’s actions to a bat attempting to urinate toward the heavens, only for the laws of gravity to turn the act against itself.
“My people have a story they tell of the bat and how it urinates. They say it urinates heavenwards,” he remarked.
He also accused the plaintiff of ignoring the role of their own caucus members in contributing to Parliament’s adjournment by failing to provide a quorum.
“Like a crybaby, Sisyphus conveniently forgets… that when Parliament adjourned twice, it is because his own members denied Parliament of a decisional quorum,” he said.
He questioned the plaintiff’s ethical consistency, pointing out their demand to represent the Speaker in court despite being diametrically opposed to him.
“Crybabe, you want to represent the Speaker when you are openly and diametrically opposed to him? Is that honest or ethical?” he quizzed.
The lawyer also accused the plaintiff of hypocrisy, highlighting their history of criticizing court judgments while condemning others for doing the same.
“This time, the crybabies should be told NO with a hard knock accompanied by a stern warning to immediately get weaned of such behaviour,” he added.
AM/BB
