The Supreme Court has declared it had jurisdiction in granting the stay of execution following the decision by Speaker Alban Bagbin to declare four seats in the House vacant.
It has therefore dismissed an application by Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin, who sought to overturn the Court’s ruling that suspended his declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacant.
The court maintained that its earlier order for the ruling by the Speaker to be stayed was in order and was not in breach of the rule of natural justice.
The Speaker’s legal team argued that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction in this case, among other grounds canvassed in court.
However, after hearing arguments from all parties, including the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, the Supreme Court panel chaired by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo maintained that its earlier ruling was appropriate, stating that the Speaker’s appeal was without merit.
‘’The consideration of these exceptional circumstances was clearly spelt out in the ruling of October 18, 2024. So it is surprising the applicant should urge that discretion of the Supreme Court was exercised in breach of Article 296.’’
The Chief Justice also described the situation in parliament as a constitutional crisis in which the constituents of the affected MPs would be denied representation.
She also declared that the affected MPs would have to vacate their seats immediately, forfeit any benefits, emoluments, and privileges that MPs were to enjoy as lawmakers, and that if those affected were ministers or deputies, they would lose those positions immediately under the Speaker’s ruling.
“Given the irreparable harm that could be caused to the constituencies—comprising hundreds of thousands of Ghanaians—who would be left without MPs and without the possibility of by-elections, as well as the irreversible impact on MPs potentially losing their seats just weeks before the December 7 election, it is necessary for this court to address this dispute promptly rather than issuing a 10-day interim order on Article 97(1)(g) as interpreted by the Speaker.
The CJ added that it is vital for the Supreme Court to expedite proceedings, bridging the standard 14-day period, by allowing the constitutional action to proceed through a statement of case, requiring parties to submit their claims within seven days, and moving quickly to resolve the issues presented.
It was the ruling of the court that had all parties complied with these directives within the suggested timeline, the case could have been resolved within the 10 days the applicant requested.
By: Rainbowradioonline.com/Ghana
