Overturn your ruling – Speaker of Parliament asks Supreme Court

• Posted on October 29, 2024October 29, 2024
• by Nana Kwesi Coomson
• Comment

The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Bagbin, has filed an application  asking the Supreme Court to overturn its decision which put on hold the Speaker’s ruling declaring four seats in Parliament vacant.

Again, the Speaker is further seeking an order from the court setting aside the writ filed  by the Majority Leader , Alexander Afenyo-Markin, which sought to prevent the Speaker from making any ruling on the four seats.

In the application  filed at the apex court today by his lawyer – Thaddeus Sory, the Speaker contends that the Supreme Court misapplied the law by staying the execution of  his ruling because it was a non -judicial decision.

According to the Speaker , the Supreme Court had powers to put on hold rulings  of courts and not those of non judicial bodies like Parliament

“In terms of orders staying of execution of rulings, the Supreme Court’s
powers, under the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana and statute, to stay execution of rulings are limited to rulings of itself and of courts lower in the judicial hierarchy but do not extend to a ruling of the Speaker of Parliament who is not part of the judicial hierarchy,” the motion stated 

“With regard to the first Defendant’s rulings in Parliament, a separate arm
of Government, therefore, such rulings ARE NOT rulings within the judicial hierarchy so as to be the subject matter of “an application for stay
of execution” and a judicial order staying their execution,” it added.

Natural justice 

Another ground for the Speaker’s application is his contention that the Supreme Court breached the rule of natural justice by staying his ruling through an ex parte application, and thus denying him a hearing.

He averred that the court  could only entertain ex-parte applications under exceptional circumstances, which did not apply in the instant case.

“In the circumstances under which the Court made the order, there was no reason to deny the first Defendant a hearing, especially as, to the knowledge of the Plaintiff, the next sitting of Parliament, at the time of the ex parte proceedings, which the court also had judicial notice of, was on Tuesday, 22nd October 2024 and the Court could have given the first Defendant a hearing, at the very least on Monday the 21st of October 2024,” the application stated.

Writ 

With regard to the writ filed by Mr Afenyo-Markin, the Speaker argued that it was a defective writ because it failed to follow the rules of court, neither did it properly invoked the jurisdiction of the court to interpret or enforce the 1992 Constitution.

He averred that Article 97(1) (g) and (h) which formed the basis for the Speaker’s ruling was clear , precise and unambiguous and therefore did not require  any constitutional interpretation from the court.

“The words used in article 97 (1) (g) and (h) of the Constitution are clear,
unambiguous and have no disputed meaning and no basis exists in the
processes filed for assuming that there is a dispute as to their meaning,” the application stated 

“The words used in the provisions of article 97(1) (g) and (h) simply mean what they say, that is to say: where a Member of Parliament leaves the party on the ticket of which they are elected to Parliament to join another political
party or to become an Independent Member of Parliament, or where a Member of Parliament elected as an Independent Member of Parliament joins a political party, they shall vacate their seats,” it added 

-Graphic