Vacant Parliamentary Seats :Invoking the Supreme Court is improper – Justice Atuguba
Retired Supreme Court Judge, Justice William Atuguba, has pointed out that it was legally incorrect to involve the Supreme Court in the parliamentary vacant seats dispute.
His statement comes after the Leader of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Caucus, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, filed an injunction application in response to the Minority’s attempt to declare the seats of Independent candidates vacant.
This situation arose following the announcement by former Leader of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) Caucus, Haruna Iddrisu, that his side intended to trigger Article 97(1)(g) of the Constitution to vacate the seats of three Majority MPs and one NDC MP.
The said constitutional provision mandates that an MP must resign their seat if they depart from the party they were elected under or choose to continue serving in Parliament as an Independent candidate.
Last Thursday, Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin deemed the Agona West, Suhum, Amenfi Central, and Fomena seats unoccupied.
Cynthia Morrison and Kwadwo Asante of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) have submitted their candidacy to run as Independent candidates in the December 7 election. Similarly, Peter Kwakye Ackah of the NDC has also filed as an Independent candidate.
Andrew Amoako Asiamah, who initially entered Parliament as an Independent candidate, has now submitted his candidacy to run under the NPP’s ticket. The Supreme Court of Ghana, on October 18, 2024, temporarily halted the Speaker’s ruling after an application was made by the Leader of the NPP caucus.
This decision effectively pauses the enforcement of the Speaker’s ruling from October 17, 2024, until a further legal review and final determination can be made. In an interview with TV3, Justice Atuguba expressed his opinion that the Supreme Court should not have been the first point of recourse, as outlined in the Constitution.
Referring to Article 99(1), which states that “The High Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any question regarding the validity of a Member of Parliament’s election or if a seat has been vacated,” he argued that the High Court would have been the more appropriate venue to address this issue of vacating seats.
The issue at hand pertains to the removal of the seats held by the four MPs, therefore falls under the jurisdiction of the High Court rather than the Supreme Court. Justice Atuguba stated that it is incorrect to involve the Supreme Court in this issue as they do not have original jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court has referral jurisdiction under Article 130 to interpret and enforce unclear constitutional provisions. If such an issue arises in a lower court, the lower court must halt the proceedings and pass the case to the Supreme Court for decision, and then continue as per the interpretation.
“So, because Article 99 has assigned seat vacancy matters to the High Court, you should not approach the Supreme Court directly. They possess referral jurisdiction in cases involving constitutional interpretation. “That is my perspective,” he inferred.
