Dr. Tony Aidoo, Ghana’s former ambassador to the Netherlands, has criticised the Supreme Court under President Akufo-Addo, arguing that it acts as a “supra-constitutional body,” often intervening in parliamentary matters.
According to MyNewsGH, he contends that the judiciary’s current conduct reflects an overreach of authority, specifically pointing to the court’s recent involvement in cases regarding parliamentary seats declared vacant.
Dr. Aidoo believes that these seat vacancies should not be legal disputes requiring Supreme Court intervention.
He argued that the matters in question are straightforward and governed by a constitutional provision—Article 97, Act 1(g) and (h)—which, in his view, clearly outlines the conditions under which parliamentary seats can be declared vacant.
According to Dr. Aidoo, this provision requires no judicial interpretation implies that the Supreme Court’s involvement is unnecessary and undermines parliamentary autonomy.
In his statement, Dr. Aidoo voiced support for the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, asserting that Bagbin applied the law as outlined in the constitution.
He suggested that Bagbin’s actions in enforcing the Article 97 provision were fully compliant with Ghana’s constitutional framework, which, he emphasised, does not need the additional clarification that the Supreme Court appears to be imposing.
Dr. Aidoo further questioned whether the Supreme Court’s actions might be politically influenced, specifically by the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP), led by President Akufo-Addo.
He expressed concerns that the judiciary is operating almost as an extension of the NPP’s influence, or what he referred to as “a sixth colonist” on behalf of the party, suggesting that it is veering towards political favouritism rather than impartiality.
Dr. Aidoo said, “The Supreme Court in the past years, especially under the Akufo-Addo administration, behaved in a manner as if its a supra-constitutional body that can interfere in every activity of Parliament. Afenyo-Markin’s writ did not show any legal course for interpretation.”