Vacant Seats Impasse: Ruling of Supreme Court unconstitutional – Alan Kyerematen

Alan Kyerematen is the leader of the Movement for Change

Thu, 31 Oct 2024Source: www.ghanaweb.com

Alan Kyerematen, a presidential candidate for the 2024 general election, has criticised the Supreme Court of Ghana for its ruling that reversed the declaration of four parliamentary seats vacant by the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin.

In a write-up sighted by GhanaWeb, Alan Kyerematen, the leader of the Movement for Change, indicated that the Supreme Court’s ruling is unconstitutional and violates the principle of separation of powers.

“The Supreme Court, in its ruling on the application of the Leader of the NPP Caucus in Parliament Hon. Alexander Afenyo-Markin to reverse the ruling of the Speaker of Parliament, on the status of the four members of Parliament, was and is in my considered and respectful opinion unconstitutional, and could be described as an abuse of the power of the Supreme Court under Article 130 (1) to interpret provisions of the Constitution,” he wrote.

The presidential candidate, who is a lawyer by training, also noted that the Speaker of Parliament was correct in declaring the four seats vacant.

According to him, the 1992 Constitution of Ghana grants Speaker Bagbin the power to declare seats in the House vacant, which he exercised appropriately.

He added that contrary to claims of ambiguity in Article 97 of the Constitution, which pertains to the declaration of parliamentary seats as vacant, the wording of the article is clear and supports the Speaker’s decision.

“For the avoidance of doubt, Article 97 (1) (g) and (h), reads as follows: Article 97(1) ‘A member of Parliament shall vacate his seat in Parliament – (g) if he leaves the party of which he was a member at the time of his election to Parliament to join another party or seeks to remain in Parliament as an independent member…. (h) if he was elected a member of Parliament as an independent candidate and joins a political party’.

“It is obvious from the mandatory language of the provision referred to above, and also in accordance with the Rules of Interpretation under Common Law, that no issue arises of interpretation, requiring the Supreme Court to exercise its discretion. The Supreme Court’s mandate to interpret provisions of the Constitution, is not to be exercised capriciously, particularly in very sensitive contexts, with implications for subverting the rule of law and obstructing the principle of Separation of Powers,” he argued.

He continued, “Indeed, if there is no issue of interpretation, then the posture of the Supreme Court, in the matter under reference, raises serious questions about whether or not the Court is interfering in the work of Parliament.”