Supreme Court Explains Why It Sided With Afenyo-Markin In Vacant Seats Controversy

• The Supreme Court has delivered its reasoning behind siding with the majority leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin in the vacant seats controversy
• The apex court said Alban Bagbin erred by declaring the seats vacant on the basis that the MPs were contesting the 2024 elections on different tickets
• It noted that until the affected MPs had changed their political affiliations in Parliament, they had not erred, and thus ruled against the Speaker

Don't miss out! Get your daily dose of sports news straight to your phone. Join YEN's Sports News channel on WhatsApp now!

The Supreme Court has delivered its reasons supporting the overturning of the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin’s decision that caused the vacant seats controversy in parliament.

The matter arose after the Speaker declared four seats vacant due to the occupants of those seats contesting with parties other than their current one in the upcoming 2024 Ghanaian general election.

The affected MPs were Cynthia Morrison of Agona West, Andrew Asiamah of Fomena, Kwadwo Asante of Suhum, and Peter Kwakye Ackah of Amenfi Central.

Apart from Kwakye Ackah, the remaining three were all members of the majority caucus led by Effutu MP Alexander Afenyo-Markin.

PAY ATTENTION: Follow us on Instagram - get the most important news directly in your favourite app!

The decision had thus changed the composition of parliament unfavourable for the NPP caucus, resulting in a tussle over the majority seats.

The NPP caucus, led by Alexander Afenyo-Markin, challenged the decision in court, arguing that the Speaker of Parliament ought to have sought judicial review of the matter prior to making such a monumental decision.

His failure, thus, meant he had overstepped his legislative jurisdiction. The court sided with Alexander Afenyo-Markin on the matter.

Supreme Court's explanation

The Supreme Court provided a further breakdown, explaining that an MP's seat can only be vacated if they change their political identity and remain in Parliament under the new identity.

The court said Articles 97(1)(g) and (h) of the Constitution apply only to the current term of Parliament and not to future terms if an MP decides to contest an upcoming election under a different political umbrella, as was the case here.

It also explained that if an MP switched political sides on the floor of parliament while continuing to stay in the chamber as a member of their former party, their seat could then be vacated.

The court said the same would apply to an independent candidate who decided to join a political party while serving as an independent.

Atuguba gives dire warning to Bagbin

YEN.com.gh also reported that a retired Supreme Court Judge had advised the Speaker of Parliament to comply with the apex court's decision.

Justice William Atuguba said that if Bagbin refused to comply with the Supreme Court's decision on the vacant seat controversy, he could be jailed.

The former apex court judge said the Speaker could also be banned from holding public office for 10 years if he chooses to resist the Supreme Court.

Proofread by Bruce Douglas, senior copy editor at YEN.com.gh

New feature: Сheck out news that is picked for YOU ➡️ click on “Recommended for you” and enjoy!

Source: YEN.com.gh