“I am fully content with the outcome today, and it underscores the point that you should not go to court based on conjectures,” Mr. Dame told the media, following the Court’s ruling.

In a unanimous 7-0 decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the application for an injunction against the implementation of the E-levy.

The MPs – Haruna Iddrisu, Mahama Ayariga, and Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa– filed the injunction application on Tuesday, April 19, following the passage of the bill on Tuesday, March 29, 2022, despite a walkout by the Minority MPs.

They had sought to stop the government from implementing the levy until an earlier case they filed to challenge the passage of the law was determined by the apex court.

On the substantive matter before the court, Mr. Dame observed that the Minority fell short of providing convincing evidence to prove its case that Parliament did not have the required numbers to approve the tax policy.

“We found before the court a bundle of speculations as to even the numbers on which Parliament voted to approve the e-levy and I feel that is really below the standard.”

He said the Minority was also not “certain about what number that approved the e-levy bill”

“That for me that is very material because with the current composition of Parliament now, the absence or presence of one Member of Parliament makes a difference. You cannot go to court and say that either 136 or 137 approved it. The fact that there are only 274 validly elected members of Parliament and the fact that the election of one member of Parliament has been canceled reduces the quorum.”

Mr. Dame views the Minority’s submissions as a confirmation that the approval of the e-levy was legal.

“For me, it actually goes to buttress my point that the e- levy was validly approved. If you go to court and there is no evidence of irregularity about the proceedings of Parliament then in my view you have not satisfied the basic test for the grant of an injunction.

The three MPs are among others, praying for the Supreme Court to declare that the said approval is contrary to law.