The Supreme Court has ruled that a Member of Parliament (MP) does not vacate their seat by changing political identity unless they attempt to remain in Parliament under the new affiliation during the same term.
In its judgment supporting a suit brought by the Majority Leader in Parliament, Alexander Afenyo-markin, the Court clarified that Article 97(1)(g) and (h) of the Constitution of Ghana 1992, applies only to an MP’s current term and has no effect on future electoral aspirations or intentions.
“It follows from the above therefore, that the only plausible conclusion which must necessarily flow from a holistic and contextual reading of Article 97(1)(g) and (h) is that an MP’s seat shall be vacated upon departure from the cohort of his elected party in Parliament to join another party in Parliament while seeking to remain in that Parliament as a member of the new party,” the court held.
The Court further stated that an independent MP who joins a party during the current term would also have to vacate their seat, as it was initially won as an independent mandate.
“Consequently, Article 97(1)(g) and (h) must be understood within their contextual framework, with no implicit or explicit indication that they pertain to future electoral aspirations or intentions that would materialize in subsequent terms, such as an MP contesting under a different ticket in the next election cycle,” the court held
Justice Yaw Darko Asare authored the majority decision, underscoring that Article 97(1)(g) and (h) apply strictly to actions taken within the current parliamentary term, excluding any implications for future elections.
Background of the Case
At the heart of this case is Speaker Bagbin’s decision to declare four parliamentary seats vacant, a move he made under his interpretation of Article 97(1)(g) of the Ghanaian Constitution. This ruling has sparked considerable legal and political controversy.
Majority Leader Afenyo-Markin has argued that Bagbin exceeded his constitutional authority by unilaterally vacating the seats without judicial oversight or the option for by-elections. In response to this contention, the Supreme Court issued an interim injunction to halt the implementation of the Speaker’s ruling while the matter is decided.
Seeking to overturn the Court’s interim injunction, Speaker Bagbin submitted an application claiming that the Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to make parliamentary decisions, as these rulings are non-judicial. His counsel, Thaddeus Sory, argued that judicial involvement in parliamentary decisions threatens the principle of separation of powers outlined in the Constitution.
Court’s Position
Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo delivered a decisive ruling, rejecting Bagbin’s application and affirming the Court’s authority to intervene when parliamentary actions are alleged to violate constitutional provisions. She emphasized the risk of disenfranchising constituents who could lose their representation without the possibility of by-elections, especially as Ghana approaches the December 7 general elections.
The Chief Justice directed both parties to submit their statements of claims within seven days to ensure a swift resolution of the substantive issues at hand.
Implications for Parliamentary Authority
As the Supreme Court gears up for its ruling on November 11, the ongoing debate over the legality of Speaker Bagbin’s choice of counsel remains unresolved. The AG’s objections highlight the complex interplay between parliamentary authority and judicial oversight, raising essential questions about the limits of power within Ghana’s government structure.
This case continues to reflect broader concerns regarding the separation of powers, the extent of parliamentary authority, and the judiciary’s role in maintaining constitutional integrity.
Click on this link to get the full judgment by the Supreme Court on the vacant seats in Parliament
#GhanaPolls2024
#CitiVerify
#ElectionBureau
