Former Attorney General Martin Amidu has launched a scathing critique of the Supreme Court judgment cited by the Majority Leader in his memorandum to the Speaker.
Referring to the November 12, 2024, ruling in Alexander Afenyo Markin v Speaker of Parliament & Attorney General, Amidu described the decision as a “per incuriam judgment,” delivered without proper regard for constitutional and procedural requirements.
Supreme Court rules: Speaker’s declaration of four seats vacant is unconstitutional
The Supreme Court of Ghana by a 5-2 decision ruled that the Speaker, Alban Bagbin’s declaration of four seats as vacant is unconstitutional.
At a brief sitting the Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo said the Speaker’s declaration cannot hold.
Read also: Speaker Bagbin declares 4 Parliamentary seats vacant
In his analysis of the ruling, Mr Amidu argued that the case was fundamentally flawed from its inception.
“The Majority Leader had no cause of action under Articles 2 and 130 of the Constitution,” he stated, noting that the legal action was initiated on October 15, 2024, before the Speaker had made any pronouncements on the debated motion in question.
According to him, this sequence invalidates the plaintiff’s claim, rendering the judgment void.
Highlighting procedural lapses, Mr Amidu pointed out that the plaintiff’s case lacked the affidavit verification required under Rule 46 of the Supreme Court Rules.
“This issue was specifically raised upon the Speaker’s application to set aside the plaintiff’s action as being incurably null and void, but the Court refused or failed to address this fundamental issue of jurisdiction,” he said.
Read also: Martin Amidu: The majority leader’s memorandum to recall Parliament is needless now
Amidu also accused the Court of improperly incorporating materials from interlocutory applications into the substantive case.
“The majority decision had no jurisdiction to import the process filed for the interlocutory applications into the substantive suit as though the Speaker had filed them as his statement of the defendant’s case,” he argued, referencing prior Supreme Court rulings to buttress his critique.
“The judgment of 12 November 2024 can only pass for an advisory opinion which is unknown to Articles 2 and 130 of the 1992 Constitution,” Mr Amidu declared, adding that the decision has compromised public trust in both Parliament and the judiciary.
He concluded with a call for a reset in governance: “The earlier the 8th Parliament clears off from the political scene, the better for the 1992 Constitution.”
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
