Supreme Court’s judgement on vacant seats will not stand the test of time – Amaliba

Director of Conflict Resolution of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Abraham Amaliba has said the Supreme Court’s judgement on vacant seats will not be effective to last a long time.

The legal practitioner believes the verdict of the Apex Court is not sane and constitutional.

Speaking in an interview on TV3’s New Day, November 15, 2024, Amaliba said by the ruling of the Supreme Court, article 97 of the constitution on the vacancy of seats in Parliament has totally been rendered “useless”.




He noted that given the court’s interpretation of the said article, it will now be difficult to say any MP has cross carpet although the article provides a clear meaning of MPs crossing carpet.

“You don’t just jump into the middle and then start saying you want to interpret, for what reason? I said and Justice Tanko has also reiterated that point this judgement will not stand the test of time.

“They have effectively struck down article 97. The question is when will article 97 ever be relevant the way they have done it. When will we ever say per article 97, a Member of Parliament has crossed carpet. They have made it useless,” Amaliba said.

Amaliba’s argument aligns with the view of Justice Amadu Tanko, 0ne of two judges to have dissented in the 5:2 majority decision of the Supreme Court.




According to him, the majority decision is an “aberration” and it may not be long when the decision is overturned.

“I do not hasten to proclaim that, I have apprehended with despair the majority’s conclusion in this suit but I state, with utmost deference to the Hon. Chief Justice and the rest of my brethren in the majority that, not only do I fundamentally disagree with their conclusion, I, with all due respect, also find the decision an aberration to the established and accepted judicial position of this court which with profound respect, I hope in no distant future the resultant usurpation of the constitutional prerogative of the High Court incidental to the majority decision will be reversed.”

The Supreme Court in its reason for declaring Bagbin’s ruling unconstitutional stated that a seat in parliament can only be vacated if the lawmaker switches political party in the current Parliament he or she serves seeking to be an Independent Candidate or join another party in the same Parliament.

The apex court said it is therefore unlawful for Mr Bagbin to rule that the lawmakers had vacated their seats just for the reason that they filed to contest as independent candidates in the 2024 elections seeking to remain MPs in the next 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 2024, 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.

Source:onuaonline.com