John Mahama
Since losing two consecutive elections in a very undignified way, the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC) has been scheming for an unconstitutional change of leadership in the country.
The NDC’s flagbearer, John Mahama and his team have never missed the opportunity to suggest that the political and economic climate in the country is ripe for a coup d’état. Now that it has become clear that the military is not interested in heeding the NDC’s agitations, the party’s leadership has changed gear, indulging in actions similar to a quasi-coup d’état.
These actions have informed the series of protests by the NDC, its allies called the Democracy Hub, which blocked the way to the 37 Military Hospital, calls for forensic audit of the provisional voters’ register, the now botched nationwide strike by Organised Labour against illegal mining and the now infamous declaration of the seats of four Members of Parliament (MPs) vacant by Speaker Bagbin to effect the shift in power in favour of the Minority in Parliament, and thus shut down government business, just about one-and-half months to the general election.
The vim with which Speaker Bagbin declared those seats vacant was missing when he was confronted with the Supreme Court order directing those MPs to return to the House. Last Tuesday, the authority of the Number Three Man was missing when dealing with the stalemate in Parliament, and tactically did not respond to the apex court’s ruling.
Prior to the meeting last Tuesday, various legal experts and commentators had encouraged Speaker Bagbin to ignore the Supreme Court order because somehow Parliament is independent of the other arms of government, including the Judiciary.
That fact is unambiguously captured by the Constitution, but Parliament cannot interpret our Constitution.
That mandate is the sole preserve of the Supreme Court. Speaker Bagbin can brag about his Number Three status, but that bluff does not extend to the corridors of the Supreme Court, otherwise he will be candidate for contempt of court.
As a lawyer, Speaker Bagbin is well versed in the powers of the Supreme Court. It is against this background that we urge our cherished readers to treat some of the commentaries about the Supreme Court verdict with the contempt they deserve. It is only the judges sitting in court whose opinions become binding on the parties in a dispute.
The various commentators such as Kwesi Pratt and Daniel Domelevo can spend their energies trying to articulate their opinions about the order of the Supreme Court and the stalemate in Parliament.
Their opinions only add up to the tonnes of views from lawyers, political commentators, serial callers and ordinary citizens that cannot alter the directive to Speaker Bagbin by the Supreme Court.
Kwesi Pratt and Daniel Domelevo are capable of reading the Constitution and interpreting it according to their persuasions, and they can even ridicule the Supreme Court judges, but their positions have no effect on the Supreme Court order. Whatever names we call the Supreme Court judges and even impugning their integrity, they will continue to serve as the bulwark against Executive and Parliament’s excesses so that an institution like Speaker Bagbin’s Parliament does not cross the red line.
No matter our disagreements, the court and for that matter the Supreme Court remains the final arbiter to resolve disputes between litigating parties. Nobody is happy to lose a case in court, but the courts offer the best forum to guarantee law and order in society as the alternative leads to the return to the law of nature where might is always right.
Let us continue to have faith in the Judiciary to deliver justice without fear or favour, ill-will or affection. Those who commend the judges when they win cases like happened in the 2013 election petition and the ambulance case but denigrate the judges when rulings do not favour them must be watched very carefully.
Their ugly noises are in contrast to the position of a believer in the rule of law like President Akufo-Addo who after losing the 2013 election petition said thus: “While I disagree with the court’s decision, I accept it. I accept that what the court says brings finality to the election dispute. We shall not be asking for a review of the verdict, so we can all move on in the interest of our nation.”