VACANT PARLIAMENTARY SEATS CASE IN THE SUPREME COURT (DOWNLOAD FULL CASE IN PDF) ALEXANDER AFENYO MARKINS VRS SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT

 

On the 12th day of November, 2024, the Supreme Court of Ghana by a majority decision of 5 -2, interpreted Article 97 (1) (g ) & (h) to the effect that a member of parliament who files nominations to contest elections on the ticket of a different political party other than the one for which he/she was elected as member of parliament, does loose his seat as a member of the current parliament. 

This decision has drawn sharp division in views of opinion leaders, lawyers, academics and jurists.  In order to understand the reasoning behind the opinions of the two sides of the bench, you are encouraged to read the full case which can be downloaded in this article.

 

WHO ARE THE JUSTICES 

Majority

Y. DARKO ASARE J.S.C

PG. SACKEY TORKONOO J.S.C (CJ), 

M. OWUSU J.S.C., 

Y. GAEWU J.S.C.  

S.K.A. ASIEDU J.S.C.

Minority (dissenting)

Tanko Amadu J.S.C. 

Lovelace -Johnson J.S.C

 

SUMMARY OF CASE

Four members of the 8th parliament of Ghana, one person from the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and three from the New Patriotic Party (NPP) majority side in parliament, were declared by the speaker of parliament to have vacated their seats. This is because three of them had filed nominations as independent candidates whilst one of them who is currently an independent MP for Fomena Constituency has now filed his nomination to contest as an NPP candidate for the constituency.

Before the Speaker made his declaration in Parliament, the Majority Leader, Alexaner Afenyo Markins filed a writ for the interpretation of Article 97 (1) (g) & (h) in the Supreme Court.

The said provision says as follows: A member of Parliament shall vacate his seat in Parliament, (g) if he leaves the party of which he was a member at the time of his election to Parliament to join another party or seeks to remain in Parliament as an independent member; or (h) if he was elected a member of Parliament as an independent candidate and joins a political party.

Based on this and other jurisprudential considerations, the Majority of the Supreme Court has held that a person who files his nomination to contest on a different political party's ticket for election into a future parliament (in this case the 9th parliament) cannot be said to have vacated his seat in the current parliament (the 8th parliament).

The Minority Justices have also disagreed. They have also argued amongst others, that the the right court to have handled this case was the high court and not the Supreme Court and that the high court could have started the case and remitted the interpretation aspect to the Supreme Court. They based their arguments on Article 99 (1) of the constitution which states as follows: "The High Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any question whether - (a) a person has been validly elected as a member of Parliament or the seat of a member has become vacant".

Well, the Supreme Court has spoken and the decision of the majority is the LAW.

What do you think about this ruling of the Supreme Court. Let’s discuss your views in the comments section below.

You can read/ download the Full PDF version of the Judgment of the Supreme Court  by clinking this link. FULL JUDGMENT.

Kindly subscribe to this blog for updates whenever I post a new article. You can also follow or subscribe to my contents on the following social media channels so we have more interactions. FACEBOOK, TIKTOK, YOU TUBE.  

 

Yours Truly,

 

Richard Nii Amarh