The Member of Parliament for South Dayi Hon. Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor Esq. and a member of the Minority in Parliament, expressed deep dissatisfaction and confusion over a decision purportedly issued by the Supreme Court.

He raised several concerns regarding the procedural and legal basis of the decision, and how it affects the operations of Parliament.

He questioned the legitimacy of the ruling, citing jurisprudence as the foundation of his argument.

Abronye Bail Denial, A Blow to Justice And Free Speech

Twum-Barimah Pushes for National Youth Green Finance

Abronye Remand: NDC’s Hamza Suhuyini Defends Court’s Decision

“We are scandalized by this decision, if it to be called a decision, because the Jurisprudence underpinning, practice of law in this country tells us certain succinct laws, settled law.”
Hon. Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor Esq Member of Parliament for South Dayi

He went on to emphasize the time limits imposed on such rulings.

“1, an ex parte grant of another based on an ex parte application cannot stay beyond nine days. It relapses with time after nine days.”
Hon. Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor Esq Member of Parliament for South Dayi

Demanding a Copy of the Ruling

Hon. Dafeamekpor repeatedly demanded a copy of the ruling to verify the details of the court’s decision. He pointed out that his comments were based solely on the information available to the public, as he had not been furnished with the actual court ruling.

“That is why I’ve been asking for a copy of the ruling. Nobody has been able to provide it. So we are we are holding these discussions based on the information you have put out.”
Hon. Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor Esq Member of Parliament for South Dayi

This highlighted a crucial issue in the transparency of court processes, especially in cases that affect parliamentary matters.

Critiquing the Supreme Court’s Stay of a Speaker’s Decision

One of the core issues raised by Hon. Dafeamekpor was the claim that the Supreme Court had stayed a decision made by the Speaker of Parliament until a final determination of a case before the court.

He criticized the court’s intervention, arguing that the Speaker’s pronouncements to the House were informational and not executable, making it inappropriate for the court to issue such a stay.

“Like I said, a grant of another based on an ex parte application elapse with a [duration] of time after nine days.”

“What is the Supreme Court saying? Which order? There’s nothing to stay. This is a non-executable order.”
Hon. Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor Esq Member of Parliament for South Dayi

Speaker’s Information to the House

To provide context, Hon. Dafeamekpor read excerpts from the Speaker’s communication to Parliament. He quoted paragraphs 27 and 28 of the Speaker’s statement to underscore the point that the Speaker had merely informed Parliament about the status of certain MPs concerning the constitution, specifically their loss of seats due to their actions.

“Honourable members, it is important to point out that the speaker is called upon by the standing orders of parliament, particularly order 18, to inform the house of the occurrence of a vacancy.”

“Accordingly, I proceed to inform the house that by the notification of the polls, the following members of parliament have, by their actions, vacated their seats in parliament.”

Hon. Dafeamekpor went on to mention the MPs listed by the Speaker, including Hon. Peter Yaw Kwakye Ackah, Hon. Andrew Asiamah Amoako, Hon Kwadjo Asante, and Cynthia Mamle Morrison who were described as either independent parliamentary candidates or NPP candidates for certain constituencies.

The Legal Misinterpretation

MP rOCKSON 1 — Hon. Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor Esq Member of Parliament for South Dayi

Hon. Dafeamekpor questioned how such information, which he referred to as purely administrative, could be subject to a stay by the court.

He argued that there was a fundamental misinterpretation of the Speaker’s role and the nature of the information he provided to the House.

He challenged the legal rationale behind the court’s decision, asserting that it was not within the court’s purview to stay what he considered mere communication. He asserted; “How do you [stay] such information?”

Accusing the Court of an Error in Law

In his concluding remarks, Hon. Dafeamekpor expressed his disappointment with the court’s handling of the matter.

He charged; “With all due respect to the court, the court has fallen to an error of law. That’s how we call it,” According to him, the court’s intervention was unwarranted and legally unsound. ”This is not something you can stay.”

Hon. Dafeamekpor concluded his remarks by reinforcing his position that the Speaker’s communication was non-executable and, therefore, not subject to judicial intervention.

His critique raised important questions about the balance of powers between the judiciary and the legislature, and the implications of such court decisions on the parliamentary process.

In summary, the MP for South Dayi conveyed a strong sense of dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court’s decision, grounded in what he described as a misapplication of law and a misunderstanding of parliamentary procedure.