Don’t tell me I am not a lawyer; the Constitution of Ghana was not written for lawyers, it was written for every Ghanaian. The Supreme Court was so eager to sit on the Parliament case that it failed to do a basic legal assessment.
It is not surprising that the two dissenting judges based their decision on jurisdiction.
Article 99, 1(a) and (b) states that:
(1) The High Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any question whether—
(a) a person has been validly elected as a member of Parliament or the seat of a member has become vacant; or The Supreme Court had no business sitting on the matter, and so when Afenyo Markins sent it to the court, the court should have referred him to the High Court. The idea is that a case could travel, and there should be higher avenues for redress. If the High Court decides and a party is not happy, the matter can be referred to the Appeals Court; if the Appeals Court decides and a party is not happy, the Supreme Court would have finality. In this case, the Chief Justice, whose court is so busy that cases are pending for nearly a year, was quick to put together a panel, including herself, and even rejected calls by a party to remove a panel member with an obvious leaning and bias towards a party.
Now, if the Speaker wants to appeal, the same Chief Justice would have to put together a panel in a matter she has already taken sides in. What’s the sense in this?
Also, on the ruling to stay execution, that was wrong. I first heard this from Lawyer Tsatsu and did some personal research; it has never happened anywhere that a court stays the execution of a decision by another arm of government. Stay of execution is a superior court’s power to right wrongs within the court system. And if I go to court for a decision against you and you appeal, the superior court could halt the implementation of the execution of the decision of that court.
It can only rule on the legal basis of a decision based on their interpretation of the Constitution; what it cannot do is to say, Parliament should do this, Parliament should stop this. The Court cannot run Parliament, the court explains the law.
Even now, Parliament remains as last announced by the Speaker; it only has to change after the Speaker has made that declaration. The Supreme Court does not run Parliament, the Speaker does.
Checks and balances do not imply oversight.
In view of this, when Parliament is recalled, the NPP has to sit at the Minority, the NDC at the Majority, and await the Speaker to reverse his ruling in recognition of the court’s decision.
If the Speaker decides to appeal, his earlier ruling stands until the court decides.
It’s that simple.
Again, in matters like this, I think the Chief Justice should not be part of the panel so that she is not attached to the decision due to the avenues for appeal where she’ll be expected to set up a panel. We have enough judges. Also, if a party is uncomfortable with a panel member, it should not be downplayed.
When we are critical of the court, people say the court is all we have; same people are quick to bastardize Parliament for the reason and attack the Speaker for no reason.
In the order of merit, Parliament is superior to the judiciary. The Speaker of Parliament is ranked above the Chief Justice.
If we can be critical of Parliament, we should be twice as critical of the Supreme Court.
What does this ruling mean for the political parties going forward? The next post would look at that.
If the Speaker wants to drag this, it can travel because:
1. The NPP has no intention to enter Parliament and sit on the left until the Speaker reverses his decision. This means that the NDC can decide to send just a few members, and on the grounds of not meeting a quorum for doing business, the Speaker can adjourn.
2. The Speaker can appeal the decision.
This is never a case of us having a constitutional crisis as the Chief Justice said. When the Supreme Court sat on a case that our Constitution says should be for the High Court, it wasn’t a constitutional crisis; when the Court stayed the execution of a decision by another organ of government, that wasn’t a constitutional crisis.
This one too isn’t; it’s a test of our democracy, and we need these things so that we go back to the Constitution and address ambiguous provisions.
In matters like this, one would have expected the court to be more circumspect in its handling, by Chief Justice was so eager to make a case that she was even warning the speaker that he could be liable for high crime.
She has a case that has to do with the executive failing to honour their obligation it assent to a bill from Parliament, that boldness has to come to the fore. SUPREME COURT ERRED TWICE IN ONE CASE
Don’t tell me I am not a lawyer; the Constitution of Ghana was not written for lawyers, it was written for every Ghanaian.
The Supreme Court was so eager to sit on the Parliament case that it failed to do a basic legal assessment.
It is not surprising that the two dissenting judges based their decision on jurisdiction.
Article 99, 1(a) and (b) states that:
(1) The High Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any question whether—
(a) a person has been validly elected as a member of Parliament or the seat of a member has become vacant; or
The Supreme Court had no business sitting on the matter, and so when Afenyo Markins sent it to the court, the court should have referred him to the High Court. The idea is that a case could travel, and there should be higher avenues for redress. If the High Court decides and a party is not happy, the matter can be referred to the Appeals Court; if the Appeals Court decides and a party is not happy, the Supreme Court would have finality. In this case, the Chief Justice, whose court is so busy that cases are pending for nearly a year, was quick to put together a panel, including herself, and even rejected calls by a party to remove a panel member with an obvious leaning and bias towards a party.
Now, if the Speaker wants to appeal, the same Chief Justice would have to put together a panel in a matter she has already taken sides in. What’s the sense in this?
Also, on the ruling to stay execution, that was wrong. I first heard this from Lawyer Tsatsu and did some personal research; it has never happened anywhere that a court stays the execution of a decision by another arm of government. Stay of execution is a superior court’s power to right wrongs within the court system. And if I go to court for a decision against you and you appeal, the superior court could halt the implementation of the execution of the decision of that court.
It can only rule on the legal basis of a decision based on their interpretation of the Constitution; what it cannot do is to say, Parliament should do this, Parliament should stop this. The Court cannot run Parliament, the court explains the law.
Even now, Parliament remains as last announced by the Speaker; it only has to change after the Speaker has made that declaration. The Supreme Court does not run Parliament, the Speaker does.
Checks and balances do not imply oversight.
In view of this, when Parliament is recalled, the NPP has to sit at the Minority, the NDC at the Majority, and await the Speaker to reverse his ruling in recognition of the court’s decision.
If the Speaker decides to appeal, his earlier ruling stands until the court decides.
It’s that simple.
Again, in matters like this, I think the Chief Justice should not be part of the panel so that she is not attached to the decision due to the avenues for appeal where she’ll be expected to set up a panel. We have enough judges. Also, if a party is uncomfortable with a panel member, it should not be downplayed.
When we are critical of the court, people say the court is all we have; same people are quick to bastardize Parliament for the reason and attack the Speaker for no reason.
In the order of merit, Parliament is superior to the judiciary. The Speaker of Parliament is ranked above the Chief Justice.
If we can be critical of Parliament, we should be twice as critical of the Supreme Court.
What does this ruling mean for the political parties going forward? The next post would look at that.
If the Speaker wants to drag this, it can travel because:
1. The NPP has no intention to enter Parliament and sit on the left until the Speaker reverses his decision. This means that the NDC can decide to send just a few members, and on the grounds of not meeting a quorum for doing business, the Speaker can adjourn.
2. The Speaker can appeal the decision.
This is never a case of us having a constitutional crisis as the Chief Justice said. When the Supreme Court sat on a case that our Constitution says should be for the High Court, it wasn’t a constitutional crisis; when the Court stayed the execution of a decision by another organ of government, that wasn’t a constitutional crisis.
This one too isn’t; it’s a test of our democracy, and we need these things so that we go back to the Constitution and address ambiguous provisions.
In matters like this, one woould have expected the court to be more circumspect in its handling, by Chief Justice was so eager to make a case that she was even warning the speaker that he could be liable for high crime.
She has a case that has to do with the executive failing to honour their obligation it assent to a bill from Parliament, that boldness has to come to the fore.
By: Isaac Kofi Kyei Andoh
