The Speaker of Parliament has described as "absurd and reckless" the recent judgement of the Supreme Court affirming voting rights of Deputy Speakers while presiding.

Alban Babgin said considering that it was a 7-0 ruling by the judges' path is worrying as the decision constitutes interference in Parliament's work.

The Speaker who is on a medical holiday in Dubai said, "The trend of unanimity is equally troubling. It doesn't help explore and expand our legal jurisprudence."

The Supreme Court presided over by Justice Jones Dotse ruled on Wednesday ruled that a Deputy Speaker can be counted during the formation of a quorum for Parliamentary decision-making and participate in voting while presiding over the parliamentary business.

The landmark judgement was given after private legal practitioner, Justice Abdulai, filed a case against the Attorney-General to contest the First Deputy Speaker, Joseph Osei-Owusu’s decision to count himself during a vote to approve the 2022 budget.

But Mr Mahama believes the 7-0 ruling affects the independence of the legislative arm of government and may affect future deliberations in the House.

Justice Abdulai had also asked the Supreme Court to interpret Articles 102 and 104 of the 1992 Constitution and declare the action of Mr Osei-Owusu as unconstitutional.

Subsequently, the Court struck out Order 109(3) of the Standing Orders of Parliament because it found the Order unconstitutional.

Hours after the judgement, former President, John Dramani Mahama, criticised the Supreme Court over its ruling.

In a post on Thursday, the NDC 2020 flagbearer said, “If Deputy Speakers, because they are Members of Parliament, can vote while presiding as Speaker, they could as well be able to participate in any debate on the floor over which they are presiding. This is the absurdity into which the Supreme Court ruling leads us”.

He described the verdict by the Court as “shocking but not surprising.”

According to him, the Wednesday ruling was “an unfortunate interpretation for convenience that sets a dangerous precedent of judicial interference in Parliamentary procedure for the future.”