Fault-Lines Revealed.… as Torkornoo’s Hasty Ruling Sets Parliament on Fire.

The Supreme Court’s ruling which stayed the declaration by the Speaker of Parliament that four seats in the Legislature have become vacant has provoked criticism amidst the reigniting of sentiments that the apex court is a full-blown mule of the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP).

Tensions have reached a fever pitch with anticipated showdown as the house reconvenes today in furtherance of its mandated businesses, and the blame is being put squarely on the Justice Torkornoo led Supreme Court Panel that has sort to interfere in what would otherwise have passed for a debate of opinions in the house of parliament.

Now, critics are pointing out the vandalism of the principle of the separation of powers involved in the matter in which the Judiciary, which is the third organ of State, overreaches to determine how another organ should run its internal affairs.

Then there is the sheer alacrity with which the ruling was given and how compared to other even weightier issues, the same supreme court had dragged its feet for years.

additionally, critics are pointing out the repetition of a sick pattern in which the supreme court justices always rule in favor of the NPP and do so with such seeming choreographed unanimity that the judges who sit on the panels that adjudicate political cases actually appear to think from one head.

Last week Friday, the apex court had stayed a declaration by the Speaker of Parliament, Rt. Hon. Alban Bagbin that the seats in Amenfi Central constituency in the Western Region, Fomena in the Ashanti Region, Suhum in the Eastern Region, and Agona West in the Central region had become vacant.

The case had been filed by Alexander Afenyo Markins, leader of the NPP’s MPs in Parliament on Thursday and less than 24 hours later, the supreme court empanelled five justices, led by Chief Justice Getrude Torkonoo, to hear the case.

For many, the speed with which the case was heard is a wonder. This because, at the same Supreme Court, a case that a law Professor, Kwaku Asare, had filed to challenge President Akufo-Addo’s  removal of Auditor General Yaw Domelevo from office, had pended until after three years.

The court would rule that Mr. Akufo-Addo had been wrong in removing the Domelevo from office but by that time, Mr. Domelevo had already retired making the court’s judgment effectively useless.

Menwhile some critics have pointed out that the Supreme Court has no power to challenge any declaration by the Speaker that pertains to Parliament’s internal affairs. One of them is Prof. Kwaku Ansa-Asare, a former Director of the Ghana School of Law.

In a critique, he pointed out that Parliament operates under its own Standing Orders, regulations, and procedures, and its actions cannot be “challenged in a court of law or expect the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling of the Speaker.

“We are practising separation of powers. Each arm of government is a domain in its own right, so just as the executive cannot be faulted when they take decisions, we may also expect that whatever Parliament does in the regular exercise of its jurisdictions cannot be questioned.”

another critic, US-based Ghanaian lawyer and scholar, Prof. Stephen Kwaku Asare, widely known as Kwaku Azar, has also stated the Supreme even lacks original jurisdiction for the case. According to him, issues on the declaration of seats in Parliament vacant must be handled by the High Court and not the Supreme Court.

in a Facebook post, he wrote, “The framers of the constitution, through Article 99, clearly designated the High Court as the appropriate forum for resolving disputes about vacating seats. Further, appellate review is left to the Court of Appeal, not the Supreme Court. The High Court, with its specialised mandate, is better suited for such matters, while the Supreme Court’s role is reserved for broader constitutional issues. The Supreme Court has no role in these matters as the Court articulated in the Wulensi matter.

“When the Supreme Court oversteps and takes on cases meant for the High Court, it risks undermining the constitutional order and appearing to engage in political matters. Such overreach disrupts the balance of powers and weakens public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality. By adhering to Article 99, and allowing the High Court to handle these issues, we protect both the integrity of the judicial system and the peace of the nation.”
Article 99 of the 1992 Constitution states that:

According to the criticism, the relevant constitutional provisions are tha, “(1) The High Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any question whether— (a) a person has been validly elected as a member of Parliament or the seat of a member has become vacant; or

(b) a person has been validly elected as a Speaker of Parliament or, having been so elected, has vacated the office of Speaker.

(2) A person aggrieved by the determination of the High Court under this article may appeal to the Court of Appeal.”

In addition to critics’ position that the Supreme Court overreached, and fell over itself to adjudicate a case that it has no jurisdiction over, the unanimity with which the court gave the ruling has evoked again, feelings that the apex court judges conspired to do the bidding of the NPP. How in a case like this, all five justices will see things the same way and rule unanimously without any one of them dissenting has left many jaded.

The Speaker’s declaration which became necessary after the MPs occupying these seats filed nomination to contest for the same seats on different tickets rather than the tickets of the political parties they represent in Parliament, was constitutionally premised on Article 97 (1)(g) of the 1992 Constitution.

Rt. Hon. Bagbin also cited a precedent in which his predecessor, Prof. Aaron Mike Ocquaye, had similarly walked out an MP for Fomena after he declared intent to contest as an independent parliamentary candidate in the 2020 election.

However, after the four seats were declared vacant by Bagbin, the Leader of the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP)’s MPs in Parliament, Alexander Afenyo Markins, ran to the Supreme Court to seek a reversal, because the vacancy declaration affects three NPP seats and only one seat of the opposition National Democratic Congress.

The legislators and the seats affected by the ruling are the NDC’s Peter Yaw Kwakye Ackah of Amenfi Central constituency in the Western Region, Andrew Amoakoh Asiamah of Fomena in the Ashanti Region, Kojo Asante, NPP MP for Suhum in the Eastern Region, and NPP’s Cynthia Morrison of Agona West constituency.

Even though Asiamah is in Parliament as an independent MP, he is a member of the NPP who had fallen out with his party in the lead up to the 2020 elections but has since supported the NPP side in Parliament.

As it stands now, the vacancy declaration means a razor-thin majority that the NPP had had before the ruling, reverses and the NDC which hither to had 137 seats as against the NPP’s 137 plus the support of independent, Andrew Asiamah of Fomena, reverses.

The NPP realising that this reversal will mean their inability to get things passed in parliament then rushed to the court, which has always ruled in favour of the NPP in political matters, to intervene.

Majority Leader, Afenyo Markin, who is the Plaintiff in the case supposedly sought an interpretation of Article 97 in the suit he filed at the apex court over the Speaker’s ruling, to which a Supreme Court panel led by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, ruled to stay the Speaker’s declaration pending a full determination of the case