Member of Parliament for Bawku Central, Mahama Ayariga, has called on the Supreme Court to establish for itself a reputation for consistency and certainty in the interpretation of the law.

He was speaking in relation to the suit filed by Minority Leader, Haruna Iddrisu and two other MPs at the Supreme Court over the approval of the Electronic Transactions Levy (E-Levy).

They contend that Parliament did not have the required number of at least half of its members present, when the controversial tax policy was approved.

The Tamale South MP and his colleagues want the Supreme Court to declare that the said approval was contrary to law as established by the Supreme Court per its ruling on the Justice Abdulai case.

According to him, should the Supreme Court decide that 137 members in the House can now form a quorum after saying otherwise barely two months ago would be a dent in the reputation of the Supreme Court.

Speaking on JoyNews’ PM Express, he stressed that: “the Supreme Court itself is an institution that must also establish a reputation for itself. The reason why when there is a controversy the Supreme Court rules, when a matter is as heated as an election petition where the whole country is mobilized, and when they say this is it, Mr A has won we’re all forced to accept them is the fact that they must have a certain authority that is not founded on force, and that is consistency, certainty, in the interpretation of the text.

“So when they interpret the text today and say you need 138 present, present doesn’t mean you should be sitting in your office in Parliament and just say that you’re present. You don’t come and write your name and walk away and say that you’re present.

“So if I come and write my name in the morning and I go somewhere and there is even evidence that I left, my flight to Bawku was 11 am. I came to Parliament, wrote, I continued to Bawku, I didn’t even sit in the chamber, I didn’t even sit and there was a decision taken at 4pm and there was clear evidence that I was not in the chamber at the time that that decision was being taken, because I came and wrote my name in the morning, then I was present at 4pm when that decision was being taken? No. I mean, this is common sense.

“So I’m waiting to see how the Supreme Court will say that 138 present mean 138 present in Osu, around the precincts of Parliament and not in the chamber of Parliament, not on your seat.

“Because if you read Article 101 of the constitution that deals with being a member of parliament it says take your seat. So taking your seat is the operative word. Being on your seat is the operative word that shows that you’re present. If you’re not on your seat you’re not present.”