Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, Justices Mariama Owusu, Samuel Kwame Adibu-Aseidu, Ernest Yao Gaewu, and Yaw Darko Asare were among the five justices that decided in favor of Afenyo-Markin. Justices Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu and Avril Lovelace Johnson were the two dissenting justices who disapproved of the decision.
An MP must resign their seat if they quit the party they were elected to in order to join another party or become independent and then attempt to continue serving in Parliament under their new political status, according to Justice Yaw Darko Asare, who wrote the reason for the majority ruling.
He added that "similarly, an independent MP who joins the cohort of a party in Parliament, while they remain Members of Parliament for which they were elected as Independent Members, will have to vacate the seat tagged as that of an Independent Member."
Afenyo-Markin, the plaintiff, "failed to properly invoke the jurisdiction of this court in terms of the reliefs sought; this action fails at the threshold, and I accordingly dismiss the same," the two dissenting Justices said in their 109-page ruling.
The High Court has the authority to decide whether or not a seat in Parliament can be considered empty, according to Article 99(1) of the Constitution, according to Justice Avril Lovelace Johnson.
She pointed out that, just like in every other case, the court would halt proceedings and refer the matter to the Supreme Court if the plaintiff's capacity was verified or not questioned and if, during the High Court hearing, it became necessary to interpret a constitutional provision. Following that, the High Court would receive the Supreme Court's ruling to use in resuming the case hearing.
Since Alexander Afenyo-Markin, the plaintiff, had improperly invoked the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, she pointed out, the complaint was dismissed.
The Supreme Court
According to Justice Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu, "I believe that Article 130(2) implicitly acknowledges that the High Court and the Court of Appeal have the authority to decide any matter due to their constitutional or statutory jurisdiction."
However, during that process, a problem could come up that calls for constitutional interpretation. Consequently, the Supreme Court shouldn't be perceived as being overly eager to usurp the jurisdiction that has been specifically created and granted to the High Courts or any other court simply because a party has brought up a constitutional or interpretive issue, particularly in cases where the Constitution specifies a process for invoking the Supreme Court's interpretative and/or enforcement jurisdiction.
He emphasized that "this court can be said to be empowered with all the powers of every court in the land by virtue of Article 129(4) of the 1992 Constitution and Section 2(4) of the Courts Act, 1993, only when the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court has been properly invoked."
Justice Tanko Amadu finished his submission by saying, "This action fails at the threshold, and I accordingly dismiss it because the plaintiff has not properly invoked the jurisdiction of this court in terms of the reliefs sought."
Read also;
》A Young Guy was Caught Stèaling Cooking Utensils in Nkawkaw Akuajoo in the Eastern Region.
》Election 2024: Bawumia Narrows John Dramani Mahama Lead by 3% in the Latest Poll Info Analytics.
》Suliya - By 2Lhords (Sly Pee x. Rap Lhord Cabal) Produced By Aghenzy Beatz.
》A Red Letter To Medikal By Amerado - ( Video + Mp3 )
》How to Check Your SIM Card Status Online After Taken Through Biometric Registration Process.
》Meet The Three Talented Kids From Ghana Whose Rap In Jamaican Patois.
》Facebook User Shares How a Hacker Tried to Hack His Facebook Account {Watch Video}
》Some Health Tips By Natural Principles That You Need To Know For Long Life.
》Kindly Note This on E-levy Charges in Ghana.
》Between A Ghanaian Model Hajia 4 Real And A Nigerian Model Richie Elijah, Who Is More Beautiful?
Thanks for your visit, kindly like, comment and please don't forget to share it with friends and families.
0 Comments