Justice Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu, one of the two dissenting judges in the Supreme Court's ruling on the vacant parliamentary seats case, has expressed significant concerns regarding the court's decision, suggesting it may be subject to reversal in the future. His comments followed the court's ruling, which was delivered on November 12, 2024, by a 5-2 majority. The court deemed the Speaker's declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacant to be unconstitutional.
The ruling specifically addressed the interpretation of Article 97 of the Constitution, particularly clauses 1(g) and 1(h), which outline the conditions under which a Member of Parliament (MP) can lose their seat. The majority opinion, which included Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo and Justices Mariama Owusu, Samuel Kwame Adibu-Aseidu, Ernest Yao Gaewu, and Yaw Darko Asare, sided with the arguments presented by the Majority Leader. They concluded that the MPs who had filed to contest the upcoming 2024 parliamentary elections, either as independent candidates or under a different political party, had not vacated their seats as per the constitutional provisions.
In stark contrast, Justice Amadu Tanko articulated his dissent, highlighting serious legal and procedural concerns that he felt were overlooked by the majority. He stated, "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."
Justice Amadu Tanko's dissent raises important questions about the implications of the court's ruling on parliamentary governance and the interpretation of constitutional law. His assertion that the decision could usurp the prerogative of the High Court indicates a broader concern about the balance of powers within the judicial system. The dissenting opinion emphasizes the potential long-term consequences of the ruling, suggesting that it may set a precedent that could undermine the authority of the High Court in similar matters.
As the political landscape evolves following this ruling, the dissent highlights a crucial aspect of judicial review and the importance of maintaining checks and balances within the government. Justice Amadu Tanko's comments underscore the need for careful consideration of constitutional interpretation, especially in matters that impact the democratic process and the representation of citizens in Parliament.
blogpay
Total Comments: 0