Supreme Court Explains Why It Sided With Afenyo-Markin In Vacant Seats Controversy

• The Supreme Court has delivered its reasoning behind its decision to side with the majority leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin in the vacant seats controversy
• The apex court said Alban Bagbin erred by declaring the seats vacant merely on the basis that the MPs were contesting in the upcoming elections on different tickets
• It noted that till the affected MPs had changed their political affiliations in parliament they had not erred

The Supreme Court has finally delivered its reasons supporting the overturning of the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin’s decision that caused the vacant seats controversy in parliament.

The vacant seats controversy arose following the Speaker of Parliament’s decision to declare some four parliamentary seats vacant due to the occupants of those seats contesting on parties other than their current one in the upcoming 2024 parliamentary elections.

The affected MPs were Cynthia Morrison of Agona West, Andrew Asiamah of Fomena, Kwadwo Asante of Suhum and Peter Kwakye Ackah of Amenfi Central.

Read also

Justice Atuguba says Bagbin risks 10-year jail term if he defies Supreme Court ruling

Apart from Peter Kwakye Ackah, the remaining three were all members of the majority caucus led by Effutu MP Alexander Afenyo-Markin.

The decision had thus changed the composition of parliament unfavourably for the NPP caucus.

The NPP caucus, led by Alexander Afenyo-Markin, challenged the decision in court, arguing that the Speaker of Parliament ought to have sought judicial review of the matter prior to making such a monumental decision.

His failure, thus, meant he had overstepped his legislative jurisdiction.

The court sided with Alexander Afenyo-Markin on the matter.

Supreme Court's explanation

The Supreme Court provided a further breakdown, explaining that an MP's seat can only be vacated if they change their political identity and remain in Parliament under the new identity.

The court said Articles 97(1)(g) and (h) of the constitution apply only to the current term of parliament and not to future terms if an MP decides to contest an upcoming election under a different political umbrella, as is the case of the four affected MPs.

Read also

K.T. Hammond files police report against Kludze Avedzi for allegedly assaulting him

It also explained that if an MP switched political sides on the floor of parliament while continuing to stay in the chamber as a member of their former party, their seat could then be vacated.

The court said the same applies to an independent candidate who decides to join a political party while serving as an independent.

Atuguba gives dire warning to Bagbin

YEN.com.gh reported that the retired Supreme Court Judge Justice William Atuguba had advised the Speaker of Parliament to comply with the apex court's decision.

He said that if Alban Bagbin refuses to comply with the Supreme Court's decision on the vacant seat controversy, he could face jail time.

Justice Atuguba said the Speaker could also be banned from holding public office for 10 years if he chooses to resist the Supreme Court.

Source: YEN.com.gh