The Supreme Court has said a Member of Parliament’s affiliation to his or her political party remains “intact until they actively change the political allegiance.”
The apex court said, the same cannot be said when they express their future intentions of representing another interest.
This was contained in a 109-page judgment released by the Supreme Court on its 5-2 majority judgment in Alexander Afenyo-Markin vs The Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney General.
“MP’s current parliamentary affiliation remains intact until they actively change their political allegiance during their term, not when they express future political intentions, the majority decision of the Supreme Court said in their full reasoning released on Thursday, November 14, 2024.
“In the end, we reiterate that on a true and proper interpretation, Article 97(1)(9), only requires that (1) An MP must vacate their seat, (2) fi they leave the party under which they were elected, (3) to join another party or become independent, (4) and seek to remain in Parliament under their new political status.
“A purposive interpretation of Article 97(1)(g) and (h) ofthe Constitution confirms that their focus is on safeguarding the electoral mandate during the current parliamentary term, not on restricting MPs’ political activities in the next electoral cycle.
“Historical examples, contextual interpretation, and the inclusion of Article 97(2) al point to the
same conclusion: MPs current parliamentary affiliation remains intact until they actively change their political allegiance during their term, not When they express future political intentions.
“For these reasons, this Court will reiterate a purposive interpretation of Article 97(1)(g) and (h) and maintain the distinction between mid-term changes in political allegiance and future electoral plans, ensuring that MPs can serve their full term without interference from future political decisions.
“This interpretation is consistent with the text, history, and purpose of Article 97(1)(9)(h) and Article 97(2), and it upholds the democratic stability of Ghana’s parliamentary system.
“In the result, we reject the invitation to reinterpret or effectively rewrite these constitutional provisions to imply that an incumbent Member of Parliament shall not file nomination to contest on a platform different from the one on which he was elected unless he first vacates his current seat. Such a reading imposes an undue restriction on political freedom, a constraint not articulated in the original text of the articles.
“The constitutional language should be construed holistically and purposively, without imposing limitations that would curtail the fundamental freedoms of sitting MPs and ultimately sabotage the rights of the electorate,” the Supreme Court said.
In the end, it said, “it is in light of all the preceding discussions, that this Court determines that the Plaintiff’s suit succeeds on the merits. In the result this Court grants the Plaintiff the rellet 1 (a), b ) and (c) and makes the following further orders:
“An order declaring the interpretation placed on Article 97(1)(g) and (h) as inconsistent with the true meaning and import of Article 97(1)(g) and (h) of the 1992 Constitution.
Source: Ghana/Starrfm.com.gh/103.5FM
