The Supreme Court by a 5-2 majority decision yesterday, declared the ruling of the Speaker of Parliament to declare four seats vacant unconstitutional.
The Chief Justice, Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkonoo joined Justices Mariama Owusu, S.K.A. Asiedu, E.Y. Gaewu and Y. Darko Asare to hold that Mr Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin was wrong in announcing two New Patriotic Party (NPP) seats, one independent seat and one National Democratic Congress (NDC) seat vacant on October 17.
Justices Lovelace Johnson and Amadu Issfu Tanko dissented on the issue of jurisdiction.
The court, presided over by the Chief Justice, Justice Gertrude Araba Sackey Torkonoo who read the judgement said the reasons and orders of the court would be filed at the court’s registry tomorrow.
The members whose seats were declared vacant were Peter Yaw Kwakye-Ackah, National Democratic Congress (NDC) MP for Amenfi Central; Andrew Amoako Asiama, Independent MP for Fomena Constituency; Kwadwo Asante, NPP MP for Suhum Constituency; and Cynthia Mamle Morrison, NPP MP for Agona West Constituency.
On October 18, Mr Alexander Afenyo-Markin, the majority leader caused his counsel, Mr Papa Kwesi Abaidoo, to challenge the decision of Mr Bagbin at the Supreme Court.
In moving the ex-parte motion, Mr Abaidoo, who was led by Joe Ghartey, told the court that the Speaker’s action amounted to usurping the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
He contended that his client filed the ex-parte application because of the likely mischief that could halt the business of Parliament, especially committees chaired by the current majority members.
Mr Abaidoo told the court there was the likelihood of the current minority members doing everything in their power to halt the business of government “in these dying minutes of the period to the 2024 elections”.
Again, he said, the ruling of the Speaker amounted to a denial of the constitutional rights of the four constituencies to be lawfully represented in Parliament.
He said the intentions of the four MPs pursuant to Article 97 (1) (h), (g) were meant for the 9th Parliament of Ghana coming in a different identity, and that it did not amount to crossing carpet in the current Parliament.
“We can face mayhem if the pre-ruling status quo is not maintained,” he said.
Having heard the arguments from Mr Abaidoo, the court ordered Parliament to allow the four MPs to conduct their parliamentary duties until the substantive matter was determined.
“The Parliament of Ghana is hereby directed to recognise and allow the four affected Members of Parliament herein named to duly represent their constituents and conduct the full scope of the duties of their offices as Members of Parliament pending the determination of this suit,” Justice Torkonoo said.
BY MALIK SULLEMANA