Citation: Writ No. J1/01/2025, Judgment delivered 12 November 2024
Facts of the Case:
In this case, the Speaker of Parliament, on 17 October 2024, declared four parliamentary seats vacant pursuant to Article 97(1)(g) and (h) of the 1992 Constitution. The affected MPs were Andrew Asiamah Amoako of Fomena, Cynthia Mamle Morrison of Agona West, Kwadwo Asante of Suhum and Peter Yaw Kwakye-Ackah of Amenfi Central. The Speaker’s decision was based on the fact that the MPs had filed nominations to contest the December 2024 parliamentary elections under political identities different from those under which they were then serving in Parliament.
Alexander Afenyo-Markin, then MP for Effutu and Majority Leader, challenged the Speaker’s action before the Supreme Court. He argued, among other things, that merely filing to contest a future Parliament under a different political identity did not mean that the MPs had vacated their seats in the existing Parliament.
Legal Issue(s):
The principal issues included:
(1) Whether the filing of nomination by a sitting MP to contest a future parliamentary election under a different political identity amounts to vacating the MP’s current seat under Article 97(1)(g) or (h).
(2) Whether the Speaker had the constitutional authority to determine and declare that the affected MPs had vacated their seats.
(3) Whether parliamentary proceedings and decisions of the Speaker are immune from judicial scrutiny where they involve questions of constitutional interpretation and enforcement.
To the Decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court, by a 5–2 majority, found in favour of Afenyo-Markin. The Court further held that the Speaker had no jurisdiction to make the constitutional determination that the MPs had vacated their seats under Article 97(1)(g) and (h). The Court concluded that the Speaker’s declaration of the four seats vacant was unconstitutional. The majority held that the affected MPs’ decision to contest the next Parliament under different political identities did not, by itself, mean that they had vacated their seats in the then-existing Parliament.
Importantly, the Court rejected the argument that Parliament’s internal proceedings were completely beyond judicial scrutiny. It reaffirmed that the Supreme Court has the constitutional responsibility to interpret and enforce the Constitution, including where parliamentary conduct is alleged to violate constitutional provisions.
How Do You Apply This Principle?
This case reaffirms the principle that Parliament is not sovereign in its internal affairs in Ghana and that the courts can interfere if it adopts a procedure that conflicts with an express provision of the 1992 Constitution.
Follow BrakoPowers Law Hub for simplified case briefs and visit www.brakopowers.com to learn more.
Be First to Comment