The legal counsel for the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, has delivered a stinging critique of actions by a key plaintiff who brought a recent case against the Speaker to the Supreme Court.
Thaddeus Sory using allegorical language and sharp analysis, compared 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.
Mr Sory argued that the Supreme Court case, initiated over a parliamentary precedent set by Bagbin, disrupted Parliament’s operations unnecessarily.
He highlighted that the same precedent had been applied years ago by Bagbin’s predecessor 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 noted.
Mr Sory criticised the plaintiff, likening them to the mythical Sisyphus, who was condemned to push a boulder uphill only for it to roll back down.
He noted the irony that the plaintiff, after hailing 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,” Mr Sory pointed out.
Read also: Thaddeus Sory: Of bat wisdom and cry babies
He stressed the contradiction in the plaintiff’s approach, which initially questioned the Speaker’s authority but later sought his 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 stated.
Mr Sory defended Bagbin’s position, noting that the Speaker had always maintained that parliamentary issues should be resolved within Parliament.
He also accused the plaintiff of ignoring the role of their own caucus members in Parliament’s adjournment due to a lack of quorum.
“Like a cry baby, Sisyphos conveniently forgets…that when Parliament adjourned twice, it is because his own members denied Parliament of a decisional quorum,” Mr Sory said.
Mr Sory further questioned the plaintiff’s ethical consistency, particularly their demand to represent the Speaker in court despite being openly opposed to him.
He suggested that such actions lacked honesty and fairness.
“Cry babe, you want to represent the Speaker when you are openly and diametrically opposed to him? Is that honest or ethical?” Mr Sory quizzed.
He 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,” Mr Sory added.
He concluded by urging a firm stance against what he described as the plaintiff’s “cry baby” behaviour.
Mr Sory 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 behaviour,” he declared.
