A retired Supreme Court Judge, Justice William Atuguba has said the Supreme Court had no locus in determining the case on vacant seats in Parliament filed by Afenyo-Markin against Speaker Alban Bagbin.
Speaking in an interview on TV3’s KeyPoints, November 16, Atuguba noted that per article 99 of the constitution, the High Court had the original jurisdiction to hear the case.
He explained that article 130(2) of the 1992 constitution allows the Supreme Court to only hear case when its jurisdiction of reference had been invoked for any interpretation.
“The high court was the right forum for the determination of the vacancy of seats. I’m saying that in situations like this, they don’t have original jurisdiction what they have is jurisdiction of reference. The subject matter belongs to the High Court,” Atuguba noted.
He explained that the Supreme Court should always take up cases in which it has “original or exclusive jurisdiction, not “referenced or concurrent jurisdiction.” He cited decided cases to buttress his claim.
The retired judge further described the reasons adduced by the majority of the Supreme Court judges as “superficial reasoning.”
Commenting on the Supreme Court’s ruling on Key Points on November 16, Justice Atuguba said the politicisation of the judiciary started some time ago, but it has reached its peak.
“What is happening is mere politics. If we don’t arrest it, this vice will continue to fester and the constitution will be subverted,” he warned.
“I think that at the heart of all these pretentious discussions going on there is no true legality involves, it’s just politics,” he added.
On Tuesday, November 12, the Supreme Court by a 5-2 majority decision upheld the suit filed by Alexander Afenyo-Markin to the effect that Speaker Alban Bagbin misinterpreted article 97(1)(g)(h) of the 1992 Constitution by declaring four seats vacant. The two dissenting justices thought the apex court did not have jurisdiction over this matter.
The suit filed by Afenyo-Markin brought a stalemate in Parliament as the NDC members assumed the Majority position based on the Speaker’s ruling. This prompted the New Patriotic Party Members of Parliament to boycott proceedings of the House.
