Private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu has accused both the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC) of appointing their friends to the Supreme Court whenever they are in government.
To that end, he said, the justices end up making decisions that reflect the philosophy of the appointors.
Kpebu has called for a review of how the justices of the apex court are appointed.
“We should look at how they are appointed because the President chooses people who reflect his thoughts… It is not only NPP, NDC when they are in government they choose their friends to the Supreme court,” he said on the Key Points on TV3 Saturday, November 16 when commenting on the Supreme Court decision to declare the action of Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin to declare four seats vacant as unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a seat in parliament can only be vacated if the lawmaker has switched political party.
The Supreme Court in its ruling on the case of the vacant seats also said that the ruling of the Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin cannot take effect in this current parliament.
“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 stated.
On Tuesday, November 12, the Supreme Court by a 5-2 majority decision upheld the suit filed by Alexander Afenyo-Markin. The two dissenting justices thought the apex court did not have jurisdiction over this matter.
With the latest ruling by the Supreme Court, Parliament is expected to be recalled with the NDC MPs reverting to their original Minority status.
The conclusion of the concurrent opinion written by Justice Kwaku Adibu Asiedu said “In conclusion, I wish to state that a common thread runs through each of the provisions in article 97(1)(b) to (h) and that thread is a condition precedent without which a Member of Parliament cannot, in law, be said to have forfeited his seat in Parliament.
“The condition precedent is that the prohibited act or acts which can cause a Member of Parliament to vacate his seat in Parliament must affect his status as a Member of Parliament in the current session of Parliament. The condition precedent cannot be an act which has an effect, or which may have an effect, not in the current session of Parliament but a future Parliament.
“In my humble view, therefore, it is incorrect and unconstitutional for the 1st Defendant to rule that the Members of Parliament concerned have vacated their seats in Parliament just for the reason that they have filed nominations to contest, as Members of Parliament, in the upcoming general elections on tickets other than those on which they were voted as members of the current Parliament. It is for these reasons that I voted to grant relief one endorsed on the Plaintiff’s writ.”
ALEXANDER AFENYO MARKIN VRS SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT & ANOR
