Private legal practitioner, Bobby Banson has said that the Supreme Court comprehensively dealt with the application of the Speaker of Parliament that was seeking to set aside the earlier order of the apex court that stayed the execution of the speaker’s ruling in declaring four seats vacant.
Bobby Banson described the Supreme Court decision as ‘solid’.
“The decision was solid in the sense that it had addressed all the issues raised in the application. They had comprehensively given explanation to the decision they took,” he said on the Key Points on TV3 Saturday, November 2.
Bobby Banson further said that the decision by the Supreme Court to dismiss an application by the Speaker to have Justice Gaewu recuse himself from the panel for the case was right.
He argued that Justice Gaewu was nominated by the president, presented to Parliament, and was approved by the Appointments Committee, and subsequently approved by the House.
To that end, it would not be enough to just raise an issue against his past affiliation with a political party to ask for his recusal from a case especially when it was not established that prior to the hearing of the case, a party chairman had called him to reason along a certain line, he further argued.
“The Supreme Court was right in refusing the objection on the basis that he was affiliated to a political party,” he said.
The Speaker, through his lawyers, applied to the court to quash an earlier verdict it gave on the matter asking him to stay his October 17 ruling which declared some four seats in the House vacant.
The apex court also dismissed the Speaker’s application that was seeking to set aside an earlier order of the court that stayed execution of the speaker’s ruling in declaring four seats vacant.
The Speaker also sought to set aside a writ filed by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, which had requested judicial intervention to prevent the Speaker from issuing further declarations on the disputed seats.
His lawyer Thaddeus Sory, Bagbin argued that the court had overreached by suspending his ruling, which he insisted was a parliamentary decision outside the judicial remit. His motion asserted that, as the Speaker’s actions were non-judicial, they should not be subject to stays of execution, a mechanism typically applied to court rulings.
“In terms of orders staying execution of rulings, the Supreme Court’s powers, under the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana and statute, to stay execution of rulings are limited to rulings of itself and of courts lower in the judicial hierarchy but do not extend to a ruling of the Speaker of Parliament who is not part of the judicial hierarchy.”
But in her ruling, the Chief Justice explained, “Given the irreparable harm that could be caused to the constituencies—comprising hundreds of thousands of Ghanaians—who would be left without MPs and without the possibility of by-elections, as well as the irreversible impact on MPs potentially losing their seats just weeks before the December 7 election, it is necessary for this court to address this dispute promptly rather than issuing a 10-day interim order on Article 97(1)(g) as interpreted by the Speaker.
She added that it is vital for the Supreme Court to expedite proceedings, bridging the standard 14-day period, by allowing the constitutional action to proceed through a statement of case, requiring parties to submit their claims within seven days, and moving quickly to resolve the issues presented.
According to the Chief Justice had all parties complied with these directives within the suggested timeline, the case could have been resolved within the 10 days the applicant requested.
Source:
3news.com
Source link
