Constitutional lawyer Bobby Banson has strongly supported the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss an application by Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin, which sought to overturn a ruling that barred him from declaring four parliamentary seats vacant.
This ruling preserves the status quo in Parliament by preventing Speaker Bagbin from enforcing his declarations for the Agona West, Fomena, Amenfi Central, and Suhum constituencies.
Mr Banson described the Supreme Court’s judgment, delivered on October 30, as thorough and balanced.
He noted that the ruling effectively addressed all relevant legal issues raised by both sides, providing a clear and well-founded rationale.
He commended the court for its diligence in handling this sensitive matter involving the Speaker and the disputed parliamentary seats.
Speaker Bagbin’s application aimed to reverse an earlier Supreme Court ruling that prohibited him from declaring these constituencies vacant.
With the court’s decision to uphold its initial judgment, the affected legislators will retain their positions for the time being.
Mr Banson praised the court for its meticulous examination of the arguments presented by the Speaker’s legal team and other parties involved.
He emphasized that the judgment reflects a deep understanding of the legal principles governing parliamentary seats and electoral matters, thereby reinforcing public confidence in the judiciary.
Furthermore, he pointed out that the court’s well-reasoned decision sets an important precedent, underscoring the significance of legal checks and balances within Ghana’s democratic framework.
“The ruling is very solid on the basis that it covered every single issue that has been raised in the contentions summarised in the application that had been filed to set aside the orders of the Supreme Court on October 18.”
“The ruling addressed each issue that had been raised and provided its reasons why it agreed or disagreed with either the applicant or the defendant on the other side and so I think it is a solid decision that has been rendered.”
“The Supreme Court was of the view that before you can deny people that representation, you must first conclude that a Member of Parliament who has been elected by the people has breached the provisions in the article that are the subject of the suit.”
“Now, the Supreme Court is of the position that as it stands now, because of the varying interpretation that had been put on those articles, you cannot come to a firm conclusion that MPs had indeed gone ahead to breach those constitutional provisions so do not hasten in concluding that they have breached articles but let the Supreme Court confirm the interpretation,” Bobby Banson said.