Constitutional Lawyer, Inusah Fuseini has asserted that the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin’s application to overturn its ruling on the four vacant parliamentary seats threatens the rule of law.
Supreme Court has dismissed the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin’s application to set aside its orders staying the ruling that declared four seats vacant on October 17, 2024. According to the Apex Court, the grounds of Speaker, Alban Bagbin’s application for the Apex Court to set aside its Order on October 18, 2024, has no merit.
The Supreme Court further stated that it would be a misapplication and misinformation for the applicant (Speaker) to say that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction.
This comes on the back of the Speaker of Parliament rejecting a writ delivered to Parliament by the Supreme Court.
In an interview on Starr Today with Efia Tutuwaa Danso, Mr. Fuseini expressed strong reservations about the Supreme Court’s recent ruling.
He described it as “inconsistent” and “contradictory”. He also stated that the ruling not only undermines democracy but also the principles of the rule of law as well.
According to Mr. Fuseini, if the Supreme Court were concerned about electorates from the four constituencies not having representation in parliament, then they would not have restrained an MP from representing his people in parliament just a few months ago.
“I mean, it is untenable to give a reason like the people of the constituencies will not be represented in Parliament and that’s a gross injustice. Was it not the same Supreme Court that restrained Quayson from attending Parliament and thereby depriving his people the right, or if you want, the benefit of his services? This contradiction and inconsistency is what is nauseating and of great concern.
“If there are reasons for the Supreme Court to say that the decision of the Speaker violates the Constitution and or there’s a potential violation of the Constitution, then that’s a different thing. But to give a spurious reason like the people will be denied representation, what about the people of SALL, Santrokofi, Akpafu, Lolobi, and Likpe? I mean, how do you think that they will feel if the Supreme Court of the country, the highest court of the country, gives this justification to restrain Bagbin from executing his decision of declaring the seats in Parliament vacant? I mean, it just violates the principles of the Constitution, treating people differently”, he stated.
He continued,” They have already set the precedent by restraining the execution. So, that is the level of inconsistency we are talking about. If you have set a precedent and said, look, an MP can be restrained from representing his people in Parliament. What precedent are you now setting? You are confusing everybody. Consistency is very important for the rule of law.
“Certainty and predictability are cardinal principles of the rule of law. And so, when you give a ruling in which you seek to say that an MP can be restrained from going to Parliament, and just a few months down the line, you give another reason saying that, you can’t restrict an MP from going to Parliament. What are you then doing? You are undermining the Constitution. You are undermining democracy. You are undermining the rule of law. That’s what the Supreme Court is doing.”
Source: Ghana/Starrfm.com.gh/103.5FM/Salimatu Nuhu
