Former President John Agyekum Kufuor has told Ghanaians that is is important to respect the decision of the Supreme Court.
He indicated that the Constitution of Ghana has empowered the Supreme Court with interpretative powers.
To that end, he said, whatever interpretation that is provided by the apex court should be accepted.
Speaking to the media on Sunday, November 17, Mr Kufuor urged Ghanaians to exercise caution in their criticisms, emphasizing that constructive discourse is essential to strengthening democracy.
“We talk of checks and balances some also say separation of powers and I subscribe to the checks and balances. Even though we are in different institutions, if yours is not going well, I should be able to tell you to prevent the excesses. However, I urge caution and thoughtfulness regarding some of the criticisms being raised.
“In the Fourth Republic, the constitution is supreme and the same constitution empowers the Supreme Court with interpretative authority.
“Once the court delivers a ruling, it must be respected. But it is important to note that the court does not actively seek cases, rather, individuals bring matters before it,” he stated.
His comments follow the flak that the highest court of the land received for annulling the ruling of the speaker in declaring four seats vacant.
For instance, a Retired Justice of the Supreme Court William Atuguba said that the Supreme Court should not have sat on this particular case.
He added “Common sense should have shown that the right forum for dissemination of election disputes is the High Court and not the Supreme Court. The law is very clear on it.”
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.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a seat in parliament can only be vacated if the lawmaker has a 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.
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.”
With the latest ruling by the Supreme Court, Parliament is expected to be recalled with the NDC MPs reverting to their original Minority status.
