You can’t declare seats vacant now – Supreme Court tells Alban Bagbin

The Supreme Court has clarified that the constitutions which validate the Speaker of Parliament’s authority to declare seats vacant in Parliament were not met. By so, the court affirmed that Alban Bagbin erred on the side of law when he declared that four seats were vacant after the MPs holding those seats filed to contest as independent candidates in the upcoming elections.

The Supreme Court delivered the ruling, satisfying the plea of the plaintiff, Alexander Afenyo-Markin of the NPP who dragged the Speaker of Parliament to court over the matter.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court said that the ruling of Alban Bagbin, the Speaker of Parliament is invalid in the current parliament. It said the conditions precedent for the Speaker’s ruling to be legal have not been met.

While 5 of the 7-member Supreme Court panel upheld the suit filed by Alexander Afenyo-Markin, two of the justices, Lovelace Johnson JSC and Ahmadu Tanko JSC dissented, stating that they believe the Supreme Court didn’t have jurisdiction to hear the case.

In the written opinion of the court after it delivered the 5-2 majority decision in favour of Afenyo-Markin,  Justice Kwaku Adibu Asiedu said “I wish to state that a common thread runs through each of the provisions in article 97(1)(b) to (h) and that thread is a condition precedent without which a Member of Parliament cannot, in law, be said to have forfeited his seat in Parliament.

“The condition precedent is that the prohibited act or acts which can cause a Member of Parliament to vacate his seat in Parliament must affect his status as a Member of Parliament in the current session of Parliament.  The condition precedent cannot be an act which has an effect, or which may have an effect, not in the current session of Parliament but a future Parliament.

“In my humble view, therefore, it is incorrect and unconstitutional for the 1st Defendant to rule that the Members of Parliament concerned have vacated their seats in Parliament just for the reason that they have filed nominations to contest, as Members of Parliament, in the upcoming general elections on tickets other than those on which they were voted as members of the current Parliament. It is for these reasons that I voted to grant relief one endorsed on the Plaintiff’s writ.”