Two of Ghana’s top Private legal practitioners, Lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata and Thaddeus Sory, have reacted to the recent rulings from the Supreme Court regarding the ‘Vacant Seats’ case initiated by Efutu Member of Parliament, Hon. Alexander Afenyo-Markin.
Lawyer Tsikata, on his part has stated that, the Supreme court’s ruling on the case of the vacant seat, has no directive to the Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin on whether or not seats have been vacated.
He explained that, There is no order saying that the MPs must be allowed in Parliament or order directing that Parliament recognize the said MPs as earlier ordered by the Court contained in the majority decision of the Court, His point was based on the ultimate conclusion drawn by the majority of the justices who sat on this matter.
Thaddeus Sory, on his side has also share the same point of view as Mr. Tsikata.
In his recent Facebook post, lawyer Thaddeus Sory writes:
"The Supreme Court decision released this afternoon is interesting. The majority decision raises a number of legal issues. Since this is a public and not legal platform I will discuss the most basic but fundamental issue for debate”.
“He explained further that, “In every case before the courts, the courts' final judgment is based on the case presented to the court contained in the original papers filed by the plaintiff before the court. If the facts on which the plaintiff initially presented their case to the court changes, and they want the court’s decision to reflect the changed circumstances, they must formally change their original case by way of an amendment. The Supreme Court rules allow the plaintiff to amend their statement of case”.
“Now the majority judgment unequivocally admits that at the time the Plaintiff filed his case, the Speaker’s response to the statement made by the Leader of the NDC caucus in Parliament HAD NOT BEEN MADE. Darko Asare JSC admits that the Plaintiff instituted his action on 15/10/2024 and the Speaker made his statement on 17/10/2024. The Plaintiff’s reliefs therefore did not pray the Supreme Court to declare the Speaker’s response to the statement null and void” the post added.
Thadeu Sory added that, “Darko Asare JSC therefore conceded in page 4 [see especially paragraph 4 of his judgment] that on the facts on which the Plaintiff instituted the action before the Court, there was no issue on which the Supreme Court’s exclusive original jurisdiction was legitimately being invoked.
Darko Asare JSC also admitted that it is events after the Plaintiff instituted the action in the Supreme Court that were of concern to the majority. The Plaintiff however, did not formally, by way of an amendment to his case formally bring the new facts to the Court as part of the substantive case before the Court. The new facts came to the Supreme Court by way of an interlocutory ex parte application and the Court dealt with it. The substantive case however, remained the same”.
“Darko Asare JSC therefore admitted that it is subsequent events occurring “two days after the issuance of” the writ which is the Speaker’s statement that the affected MPs “cannot be allowed by law, to continue to pretend to be representing their constituents” and Parliament was accordingly so informed that constituted the “act” that caused the Supreme Court to stay execution of the Speaker’s said statement pending the determination of the matter by the Supreme Court. See page 5 of his judgment”.
“The Court however, justified its decision to assume jurisdiction in respect of the Speaker’s subsequent response to the Leader’s statement on the ground that the decision had an “intimate connection with their jurisdiction and its inextricable link to the pleaded facts and issues”.
blogpay
Total Comments: 0