A lawsuit contesting the validity of President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo's order allowing metropolitan, municipal, and district chief executives (MMDCEs) to continue serving after their terms ended in 2021 was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
The lawsuit, which was brought against the Attorney-General (AG), referred to the Supreme Court's authority to interpret the Constitution of 1992.
It was submitted by South Dayi's Member of Parliament (MP), Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor of the National Democratic Congress (NDC).
Because there was no provision in the Constitution for "acting MMDCEs," the MP claimed that the President's directive violated the 1992 Constitution.
A seven-member panel of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Jones Dotse, decided unanimously on Wednesday that it did not agree with the plaintiff and, as a result, rejected the case.
Although the court withheld its justifications at first, it did state that the registry would have them later on Wednesday.
"Our verdict is a unanimous one after considering the plaintiff's case." By today's end, the Registry would have our reasons for dismissing all of the plaintiffs' requests for relief, according to Justice Dotse.
Justices Nene Amegatcher, Nii Ashie Kotey, Mariama Owusu, Avril Lovelace Johnson, Gertrude Torkornoo, and Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu were also on the panel.
Reliefs
All MMDCEs who were in office as a result of the President's order were ordered to "vacate office with immediate effect" by Mr. Dafeamekpor, who requested a ruling from the Supreme Court.
He requested that the Supreme Court rule that the President does not have the right to order MMDCEs to "remain in office in an acting capacity" in accordance with Article 246(2) of the 1992 Constitution.
The 1992 Constitution's Article 246 (2) states that the term of office for MMDCEs "shall be for four years, and a person shall not hold office for more than two consecutive terms".
Additionally, he argued that in addition to the term of office, Article 243 (1) of the 1992 Constitution mandated that all MMDCEs receive the assemblies' approval before they could claim to be MMDCEs.
Therefore, he requested that the Supreme Court rule that the President's order for the MMDCEs to serve in an acting capacity violates Article 243 (1) of the 1992 Constitution.
In essence, the MP's legal action was an application to the Supreme Court seeking to invalidate all individuals serving as MMDCEs.
In the instance of the MP, the 1992 Constitution did not recognize a post known as an "acting MMDCE," hence the President's order to appoint someone to that position was unlawful.
The lawsuit was brought in September 2021 in response to many complaints made by the membership of the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP) on what they saw to be the President's hesitation in appointing, almost eight months after being sworn in for a second term, MMDCEs.
blogpay
Total Comments: 0