The Head of Legal Affairs for the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Edudzie Tamakloe, has disagreed with the rationale behind the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin’s ruling.
On Tuesday, November 12, the Supreme Court ruled against Speaker Alban Bagbin’s declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacant, supporting a challenge brought before it by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin.
The court reasoned that Speaker Bagbin’s decision would deprive the affected constituents of representation.
On Thursday, November 14, the Supreme Court in its full judgment explained that a Member of Parliament (MP) can only be considered to have vacated their seat if they change their political identity and remain in Parliament under the new identity.
In the judgment backing a suit brought by the Majority Leader, the court clarified that Articles 97(1)(g) and (h) of the Constitution are applicable only to the current term of Parliament. These provisions do not apply to future terms, such as when an MP contests elections under a different political affiliation.
The court emphasized that an MP’s seat is vacated if they switch parties within Parliament while continuing to serve as a member of the new party.
“It follows from the above therefore, that the only plausible conclusion which must necessarily flow from a holistic and contextual reading of Article 97(1)(g) and (h) is that an MP’s seat shall be vacated upon departure from the cohort of his elected party in Parliament to join another party in Parliament while seeking to remain in that Parliament as a member of the new party,” the court held.
In the same judgment, two of the Justices who dissented were of the view that an independent MP who joins a political party will have to vacate the seat originally held as an Independent Member.
However, in an interview with Citi News, Edudzie Tamakloe maintained that the Supreme Court’s interpretation undermines parliamentary authority.
“We must not and we should not encourage double standards. We should not encourage dishonesty. Look, the people who drafted the New Patriotic Party’s (NPP) constitution with respect, are not daft. They are very learned. They knew what they were doing and said, you forfeit your membership of our party.
“So as we speak now, per Article 9 of the NPP constitution, is Cynthia Morrison still a member of the NPP? So you are telling me that a non-NPP member can continue to be a member of parliament of the NPP?”
Discussion about this post