Why Supreme Court rejected Speaker's request to set aside its order for Stay of Execution
It held that the applicant's contention that the apex court does not have the jurisdiction to interpret Article 97 amounts to misinformation.
The Supreme Court has denied Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin’s request to reverse a previous ruling, which halted his declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacant.
It held that the applicant's contention that the apex court does not have the jurisdiction to interpret Article 97 amounts to misinformation.
The case began when Effutu MP Alexander Afenyo-Markin challenged the Speaker’s decision to declare the seats vacant. Representing the Speaker, his legal team argued that the Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to intervene, among other points raised during proceedings.
When the case was called, the lawyer for the Speaker, Thaddeus Sory held among others that the apex court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the right forum per Article 99 should have been the High Court.
He also faulted the October 18 order of the court arguing that it was misguided since the Speaker's ruling was not executable.
After reviewing arguments from all parties, including the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, the Supreme Court upheld its original decision, deeming the Speaker’s appeal unsubstantiated. “Upon careful consideration, we find that the grounds of the application lack merit."
The five-member panel presided over by the Chief Justice held that Article 99 as argued by the applicant's counsel, does not take away its jurisdiction to interpret the constitution and that even if the case had gone to the High Court, it would still have been referred to its outfit for an interpretation of the Article in contention.
Before this ruling, the Court also dismissed an objection from Thaddeus Sory, the Speaker’s counsel, who argued that Justice Ernest Gaewu might face a conflict of interest due to his past candidacy with the New Patriotic Party (NPP). The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed this concern.
The ruling comes after an earlier decision on October 18, when the Court instructed Parliament to allow the four MPs to resume their roles until the case’s conclusion, effectively suspending the Speaker's declaration made on October 17.
The ruling holds considerable weight as both parliamentary factions currently claim a majority.