Ghana Supreme Court denies application to reinstate Parliament speaker’s ruling declaring 4 seats vacantts – JURIST

Ghana’s Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin’s call for the court to set aside its earlier ruling which suspended the speaker’s decision on October 17 to declare four Parliament seats vacant.

The court’s ruling, as delivered by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, stated it is a basic principle of law in the Ghanaian legal system that the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction arising from Articles 2 and 130(1) of the Constitution to interpret and enforce constitutional provisions. Commenting on the import of Article 130(2), the Chief Justice provided that:

…if anyone finds that a meaning is being given to any provision of the 1992 Constitution that the person disputes, or that any act is being done by reason of a disputed meaning given to the Constitution, then article 2 and article 130(1)(a) mandate that only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to provide the people of Ghana with the correct interpretation of the provision in the Constitution.

In this light, the Chief Justice found that the Speaker’s application arguing that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction with respect to Article 97(1)(g) of the 1992 Constitution as Article 99 gives determination over membership of Parliament to the High Court is nothing but a misapprehension and misinformation of the law.

Chief Justice Torkornoo stated that the jurisdiction of the High Court with respect to vacant parliamentary seats is a question of fact and not of law. However, in the present case of Afenyo Markin v Speaker of Parliament and Attorney General, whether members of the 8th Parliament who have filed as independent candidates to contest for elections for the 9th Parliament are deemed to have vacated their seats in the meaning of Article 97(1)(g) is a question of law which is to be taken from the interpretation and enforcement of Article 97(1)(g).

The court added that the controversy raised with respect to the propriety of the interpretation of Article 97(1)(g) being given in the Speaker’s ruling on October 17 gives the court the jurisdiction to give a hearing to the plaintiff.