SC ruling on Parliament vacant seats absurd – Lawyer
Renowned lawyer Kwame Boafo Akuffo has voiced significant concerns regarding the Supreme Court’s recent handling of the Application for Stay of Execution in the ongoing vacant seats saga.
He argues that the court has a duty to ensure consistent application of legal principles, emphasizing that inconsistency can undermine the coherence of the law and lead to a patchwork of disparate rules.
Akuffo points out that the nature of the application itself poses problems.
He argues that a party cannot seek a Stay of Execution regarding a matter that is not a formal judgment or court order, stating, ” A party cannot seek an Application for Stay of Execution in respect of a matter which is not a Judgment or a Court order . The speaker’s order is not of such . In any case, it is absurd to seek a Stay of Execution in a case in which the Court has not made any orders. There was no jurisdiction in the Court.
He further notes the absurdity of seeking a stay in a case where the court has issued no prior orders, calling into question the court’s jurisdiction in the matter. Moreover, Akuffo highlights that the cause of action for which the applicant approached the court has been rendered moot by the Speaker’s declaration of the seats as vacant.
He stresses that the application was filed before this declaration, making it misaligned with the current circumstances.
“The Speaker’s conduct created a new cause of action,” he explains, asserting that the applicant failed to amend the writ to align with the new facts.
The lawyer argues that the granting of the application represents a problematic merger of new facts with an outdated cause of action, likening it to “putting new wine in old wineskins.”
He criticizes the court for procedural errors and raises questions about its jurisdiction in light of Article 99 of the 1992 Constitution.
Akuffo concludes that this case should only come before the Supreme Court via a reference after being filed in the High Court, leaving the legal community to ponder the implications of the court’s recent actions.