Thaddeus Sory, the legal counsel for Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin, has delivered a sharp critique of the actions taken by a key plaintiff in the recent Supreme Court case against the Speaker.
Using allegorical language and pointed analysis, Sory likened the plaintiff’s efforts to the story of a bat urinating heavenwards—a futile act doomed by the laws of gravity.
“My people have a story they tell of the bat and how it urinates. They say it [the bat] urinates heavenwards,” Mr. Sory said. He explained that the bat’s actions represent a deliberate but misguided attempt to challenge a higher authority, inevitably causing self-inflicted harm.
Sory argued that the case, initiated by the plaintiff over a parliamentary precedent set by Speaker Bagbin, had unnecessarily disrupted the operations of Parliament. He pointed out that the same precedent had been applied years earlier by Bagbin’s predecessor without any 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,” Sory noted.
In his critique, Sory likened the plaintiff’s actions to the myth of Sisyphus, who was condemned to push a boulder uphill only for it to roll back down again. He highlighted the irony of the situation, where the plaintiff, after celebrating the court’s decision as a victory for democracy, later appeared to backtrack.
“After chalking a momentous victory against the Speaker of Parliament…the judgment has not even been entered or served on the Speaker. Now there is a subtle plea that the Speaker should use his discretion to recall Parliament,” Sory pointed out.
He questioned the plaintiff’s inconsistent approach, which initially challenged the Speaker’s authority but 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,” Sory added.
Read also:
Free Dialysis Policy to Launch on December 1: NHIA Assures Readiness
Drama at Atasemanso: Deputy Finance Minister Allegedly Pulls Gun
Azeem Slams CHRAJ Over Kusi Boateng Conflict of Interest Report
Sory defended Bagbin’s position, emphasizing that the Speaker had always maintained that parliamentary matters should be resolved within Parliament itself.
He also criticized the plaintiff for failing to acknowledge the role of their own caucus members in Parliament’s adjournment due to a lack of quorum.
“Like a cry baby, Sisyphus conveniently forgets…that when Parliament adjourned twice, it is because his own members denied Parliament of a decisional quorum,” Sory said.
Sory further questioned the ethical consistency of the plaintiff, particularly in their demand to represent the Speaker in court despite being openly opposed to him. He called into question the honesty and fairness of such actions.
“Cry baby, you want to represent the Speaker when you are openly and diametrically opposed to him? Is that honest or ethical?” Sory asked.
Sory also took aim at the plaintiff’s criticism of lawyers who critique court judgments, accusing them of hypocrisy. “Whilst so crying, he forgets his criticism of the Court of Appeal judgment which acquitted Jakpa and a leader in Parliament,” Sory added.
In his conclusion, Sory urged a firm stance against what he described as the plaintiff’s “cry baby” behavior. He called for discipline and accountability, likening indulgence toward such actions to enabling a spoiled child.
“This time the cry babies should be told NO with a hard knock accompanied by a stern warning to immediately get weaned of such behavior,” Sory declared.
