Why 2 Supreme Court Justices dissented on vacant seats ruling

The Supreme Court of Ghana has provided a detailed explanation of its ruling to uphold the suit filed by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin.

In a 5-2 decision delivered on Tuesday, 12th November 2024, a seven-member panel, led by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, overturned the decision of Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin, who had declared four parliamentary seats vacant.




In its judgment, the court clarified that an MP’s seat is considered vacated if the member changes parties within Parliament and continues to serve under the new party affiliation.

However, two of the justices dissented. Justice Lovelace-Johnson, one of the dissenting judges, argued that the High Court, rather than the Supreme Court, holds exclusive jurisdiction in matters concerning the vacation of parliamentary seats.



“It is my opinion that, in matters relating to the vacation or otherwise of a parliamentary seat, a plaintiff has no choice in the matter. They must go to the High Court. The jurisdiction of the High Court is exclusive,” she stated.

Justice Tanko Amadu, in his dissent, also expressed strong reservations, describing the majority’s decision as an “aberration” to established judicial practices.

“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, but I also find the decision an aberration to the established and accepted judicial position of this court,” he said.

Justice Amadu further expressed hope that in the future, the resultant usurpation of the constitutional prerogative of the High Court, as a consequence of the majority decision, would be reversed.

Below is the full Supreme Court ruling

Source:www.myjoyonline.com