Another "bombshell" has been release following the recent Supreme Court's ruling regarding Article 97(1)(g)(h) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, which Afenyo-Markin petitioned the Court for interpretation.
The ruling the which was delivered on December 12, 2024 by a 5-2 majority on the panel, declared unconstitutional, Speaker Alban Bagbin's declaration of four seats in Parliament as vacant.
Whiles 5 out of the 7 Justices on the Bench voted in favor of Afenyo Makins case, 2 voted against; their reason being that, the Supreme has no jurisdiction to hear the case.
Few days after the ruling, one of the judges who voted against the case, has "cleared the air".
Justice Amadu Tanko, one of the Supreme Court Judges, who dissented in the case against the Speaker of Parliament has predicted that, his majority colleagues’ s decision may not stand the test of time; and that it may not be long when the decision is overturned.
In his dissenting view on the case, Justice Tanko said “I do not hasten to proclaim that, I have apprehended with despair the majority's conclusion in this suit but I state, with utmost deference to the Hon. Chief Justice and the rest of my brethren in the majority that, not only do I fundamentally disagree with their conclusion, I, with all due respect, also find the decision an aberration to the established and accepted judicial position of this court which with profound respect, I hope in no distant future the resultant usurpation of the constitutional prerogative of the High Court incidental to the majority decision will be reversed”.
He emphasized that, the Constitution itself places strict boundaries on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, particularly regarding matters where the High Court has been expressly designated to make certain determinations.
Referring to Article 99 of Ghana's 1992 Constitution, Justice Tanko said the constitution gives the High Court the exclusive authority to rule on whether a parliamentary seat is vacant or not.
blogpay
Total Comments: 0