Vacant seats controversy: Speaker Bagbin wants Justice Gaewu to recuse himself

Lawyers for the Speaker of Parliament have called for Supreme Court Judge, Justice Gaewu to recuse himself from the case in relation to the Speaker’s declaration of some seats vacant.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday, October 30 begun hearing a suit filed by Speaker Bagbin for the Apex Court to vacate its ruling of a stay of execution on the Speaker’s declaration.

Counsel for the Speaker, Thaddeus Sory in court on Wednesday, October 30 argued that the said Justice had once affiliated with the NPP by contesting as an MP on the ticket of the party in the Volta Region, thus cannot be a Judge in the case.

“He was known to be associated with New Patriotic Party (NPP) and in fact he was a parliamentary candidate in one of their constituencies in the Volta Region,” Thaddeus Sory argued.

It would be recalled that following an ex parte motion filed by Alexander Afenyo-Markin over the declaration of vacant seats by Bagbin, the apex court ordered for a stay of ruling on Bagbin’s declaration.

In response, Bagbin filed an application at the apex court through his lawyer, Thaddeus Sory. The Speaker contends that the Supreme Court misapplied the law by putting on hold the execution of his ruling because it was a non-judicial decision.

The Speaker in his reliefs prayed the court to strike out its stay of execution of his ruling on the declaration of the four seats vacant, among others.

The Speaker is further seeking an order from the court to set aside the writ filed by the Leader of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) caucus, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, which sought to prevent the Speaker from making any ruling on the four seats.

According to the Speaker, the Supreme Court had powers to put on hold rulings of courts and not those of non-judicial bodies such as Parliament.

“In terms of orders staying of execution of rulings, the Supreme Court’s powers, under the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana and statute, to stay execution of rulings are limited to rulings of itself and of courts lower in the judicial hierarchy but do not extend to a ruling of the Speaker of Parliament who is not part of the judicial hierarchy,” the motion stated.

“With regard to the first defendant’s rulings in Parliament, a separate arm of Government, there fore, such rulings are not rulings within the judicial hierarchy so as to be the subject matter of ‘an application for stay of execution’ and a judicial order staying their execution,” it added.