Godfred Yeboah Dame
The Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Godfred Yeboah Dame, has asserted that a Member of Parliament (MP) filing nomination to contest an upcoming election for a place in a future Parliament does not lead to a vacation of seat.
According to him, the filing of nomination by a sitting MP to contest a future parliamentary election on the ticket of a political party, when he had been elected for the life of the current Parliament as an independent candidate does not result in vacation of his or her seat.
Mr. Dame said this in his statement in response to the suit filed by Majority Leader of Parliament, Alexander Afenyo-Markin regarding the declaration of four seats vacant by the Speaker of Parliament last Thursday.
It is his view that an MP only vacates his or her seat if in the current term of Parliament, they leave the party of which they were members at the time of election to join another party or seek to remain in Parliament as an independent member.
“In our submission, ‘Parliament’ used in Article 97 refers to a session of Parliament duly convened after the holding of a general election (or recalled by the President during a state of emergency) and continuing until it is dissolved in accordance with Articles 112 and 113 of the Constitution,” the AG averred.
‘Vacant Seats’
The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, on Thursday, October 17, 2024 declared the seats of four Members of Parliament vacant following a motion filed by former Minority Leader, Haruna Iddrisu on ground that they were no longer members of the political parties on which ticket they were elected.
The affected MPs include Peter Yaw Kwakye-Ackah (Amenfi Central), Andrew Asiamah Amoako (Fomena), Kwadjo Asante (Suhum), and Cynthia Mamle Morrison (Agona West).
Suit
Prior to his ruling, Afenyo-Markin had filed a suit at the Supreme Court seeking an interpretation of Article 97 (g) and (h) of the 1992 Constitution.
He was seeking a declaration that the MPs filing their nomination to contest either on the ticket of another political party or as independent candidates does not result in a declaration of their seats vacant.
He was also seeking an order restraining the Speaker from pronouncing on any motion regarding the seats of the MPs until the final determination of the case.
In spite of the pendency of the suit, the Speaker went ahead to declare the four seats vacant, resulting in the Supreme Court issuing a restraining order against the execution of the Speaker’s ruling.
Mr. Bagbin, on October 22, 2024, adjourned Parliament indefinitely without making any reference to the decision of the Supreme Court.
AG’s Defence
The Attorney General, in his response to the suit, avers that the object of the constitution to prevent members from cross carpeting during a session of Parliament is achieved by construing Article 97(g) and (h) to cover a change of the political party with which an MP comes to Parliament during the life of a particular Parliament and not an expression of an intent to contest a future election into a future Parliament whose session has not commenced and of which the MP is not even guaranteed to a member of.
Mr. Dame also avers that the Supreme Court’s determination of the issue does not fetter Parliamentary autonomy as there has been many instances where the Supreme Court, exercising its original jurisdiction to interpret the constitution, declared as unconstitutional decisions of Parliament and acts of the Executive.
“Irrespective of the circumstances surrounding an action, a genuine case for interpretation of the Constitution correctly invokes the jurisdiction of the Court under Articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the Constitution,” he stressed.
Mr. Dame further points out that every arm of government or agency of the state, including Parliament, is subject to the constitution and to the Supreme Court’s judicial review powers of determining the constitutionality of actions and decisions by that arm or agency.
“Consequently, an order, decision, ruling or determination by the Speaker of Parliament, in contravention of and/or ultra vires to the Constitution, will render such order, decision, ruling or determination, amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court,” he added.
By Gibril Abdul Razak