Why Two Supreme Court Judges Dissented In The Vacant Seats Controversy
- The dissenting judges in the Parliamentary vacant seats controversy have explained their stance on the matter
- The judges argued that the case ought to have been dismissed for wrongly invoking the Supreme Court's jurisdiction
- The judges stated that the case ought to have been filed at the High Court and not the Supreme Court, hence their position
In the Supreme Court ruling that overturned the Speaker of Parliament’s declaration of four parliamentary seats vacant, two judges dissented.
The judges, Justice Lovelace-Johnson and Justice Tanko Amadu, were confirmed to have dissented based on issues of jurisdiction.
Source: Getty Images
Justice Lovelace-Johnson, in his dissenting argument, had argued that the Supreme Court did not have primary jurisdiction over issues of vacation of parliamentary seats.
He argued that in such matters, the High Court had exclusive jurisdiction and that the majority leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, ought to have filed his case at that level.
He also stated that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in this case had not been properly invoked and promptly dismissed the case without arguing its merits or otherwise.
Justice Tanko Amadu, in his dissenting argument, described the majority’s decision on the case as an aberration to established judicial practices and said the majority's conclusion had caused him despair.
He expressed hope that in the near future that the effect of the Supreme Court’s usurpation of the constitutional dispensation of the High Court in the vacant seats matter would be reversed.
What the majority decision said
The reasoning behind the majority decision supporting the overturning of the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin’s decision in the vacant seats controversy in parliament was released on Thursday, November 14, 2024.
The Supreme Court explained 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 was the case here.
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 would apply to an independent candidate who decided to join a political party while serving as an independent.
Atuguba warns Bagbin against defying ruling
YEN.com.gh reported that retired Supreme Court Judge William Atuguba has advised the Speaker to comply with the apex court's decision.
Justice Atuguba said that should Bagbin refuse to comply with the Supreme Court's decision on the vacant seat case, he could face jail time.
The former Judge added that the Speaker could also be banned from holding public office for 10 years if he chooses to resist the court's ruling.
Proofread by Bruce Douglas, senior copy editor at YEN.com.gh
New feature: Сheck out news that is picked for YOU ➡️ click on “Recommended for you” and enjoy!
Source: YEN.com.gh
