The Supreme Court has provided a detailed explanation for its decision to uphold the suit by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin on the four vacant seats saga.
In a ruling on Tuesday, November 12, the apex court by a 5-2 majority decision, deemed Speaker Alban Bagbin’s declaration of the four vacant seats unconstitutional.
READ ALSO: Vacant seats: Speaker’s ruling unconstitutional — Supreme Court
In the judgment detailing why it upheld the suit by the Majority Leader in Parliament, the court held that a Member of Parliament (MP) can only be considered to have vacated their seat if they change their political identity and remain in Parliament under the new identity.
The court clarified that Articles 97(1)(g) and (h) of the Constitution are applicable only to the current term of Parliament. These provisions do not apply to future terms, such as when an MP contests elections under a different political affiliation.
The court stressed that an MP’s seat is vacated if they switch parties within Parliament while continuing to serve as a member of the new party.
Similarly, an independent MP who joins a political party will have to vacate the seat originally held as an Independent Member.
The court’s judgment indicates that the constitutional provisions in question are specific to the present term of Parliament, emphasising that they do not address an MP’s political choices for future election cycles.
“Consequently, Article 97(1)(g) and (h) must be understood within their contextual framework, with no implicit or explicit indication that they pertain to future electoral aspirations or intentions that would materialize in subsequent terms, such as an MP contesting under a different ticket in the next election cycle,” the court held.
Read the Supreme Court’s full ruling below;