The Supreme Court will on Tuesday give a judgment on the correct position of the law regarding Article 97(1) (g) and (h), the constitutional provision that the Speaker of Parliament used to declare four seats in Parliament vacant.

A seven-member panel of the court, presided over by the Chief Justice, Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, fixed the date for judgement on Monday after hearing arguments from the Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, and Joe Ghartey, lawyer for Alexander Afenyo-Markin , the plaintiff.

The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Kingsford Sumana Bagbin, who is the first defendant in the action has, however, chosen not to defend the action. 

Mr Afenyo-Markin is seeking an interpretation from the court that Article 97(1) (g) and (h) only applies to a current term of Parliament, and therefore the the move by the Speaker to declare the seats of the four MPs vacant is unconstitutional.

The Speaker of Parliament has decided not to defend the suit seeking an interpretation of the constitutional provision that led him to declare four seats in Parliament vacant.

At Monday morning’s hearing of the suit seeking an interpretation of Article 97(1) (g) and (h), there was no legal representation for the Speaker, neither had he filed any legal process.

The seven-member panel, presided over by the Chief Justice, Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, proceeded to hear the case because the plaintiff, Alexander Afenyo-Markin and the Attorney-General, who is the second defendant, have all filed their processes.

After the court heard the submissions of the lawyers for the plaintiff, the Attorney-General Godfred Dame took his turn.

The Attorney-General, Godfred Yeboah Dame described as unconstitutional a ruling in 2020 by a former Speaker of Parliament, Professor Aaron Mike Oquaye, declaring vacant the seat of the then Member of Parliament (MP) for Fomena, Andrews Amoako Asiamah.

The Attorney-General made that point, which is the basis for the current Speaker, Alban Bagbin, declaring four seats in Parliament vacant.

Mr Dame argued that what the then Speaker, Prof Oquaye did was unconstitutional and should not be used as a justification for what Speaker Bagbin did.

“No matter the number of times an unconstitutional act is repeated, it does not make it right,” he argued.