Legal expert and Member of Parliament for Bolgantanga East Constituency Hon. Dr. Dominic Akuritinga Ayini, has strongly critiqued the ruling of the Supreme Court.
He argued that the Court made two major legal errors in its decision to address a stay of execution related to a parliamentary procedure.
Dr. Ayini’s comments centered around his view that the Court misunderstood its authority in this case and failed to recognize critical procedural gaps in the laws governing such petitions. This report summarizes his main points and explores the legal basis for his arguments, offering an in-depth look at the issues raised.
Legal Framework: No Clear Procedure in Article 97
Dr. Ayini first raised concerns about the absence of clear legal procedures for the issue that was brought before the Supreme Court.
He pointed out that Article 97 of the 1992 Constitution, which deals with the grounds for vacating a parliamentary seat, does not provide any guidance on the specific procedure for filing a petition in such cases.
Dr. Ayini emphasized that there is a lack of direction in both the Constitution and the standing orders of Parliament concerning the appropriate course of action when such a petition is brought forward.
He further noted that this procedural gap weakens the argument that the affected political party has the legal standing, or “locus standi,” to file the suit.
“The whole idea that it is the political party that is affected, that has locus standi to bring or that has the capacity to bring a suit— that proposition has no legal lexus, I mean to stand on.”
Hon. Dr. Dominic Akuritinga Ayini Member of Parliament, for Bolgantanga East Constituency
This argument underscored Dr. Ayini’s position that the Supreme Court may have overstepped its bounds by allowing a suit to proceed under such ambiguous legal circumstances.
The Speaker’s Authority and Parliamentary Procedure
Dr. Ayini also addressed the role of the Speaker of Parliament in handling the matter before it escalated to the courts.
According to him, the Speaker acted within his legal and procedural rights by inviting input from members of Parliament when the issue was brought to his attention.
“When the matter was brought to the attention of Mr Speaker, it was within his right to invite comments, he invited comments, we all made our inputs especillaay the lawyres in the house including the Honorable Joe Ghartey.”
Hon. Dr. Dominic Akuritinga Ayini Member of Parliament, for Bolgantanga East Constituency
Dr. Ayini implied that the Speaker’s decision was made based on these consultations, which should have been respected by the Court. He charged; “Mr Speaker decided to respond. And it is that response which is now the subject matter of the ruling.”
Dr. Ayini’s comments suggested that the Supreme Court’s interference may have undermined the authority of the Speaker, raising questions about the balance of power between the judiciary and the legislature in such constitutional matters.
The Supreme Court’s Hasty Ruling: Two Major Errors
Dr. Ayini’s most serious critique was directed at the Court’s ruling itself, which he argued was not only hasty but also legally flawed. He asserted that the Court made two key errors in its judgment.
“The application, the subject matter of the ruling, was an application for stay of execution, you and I know that there is no executable order or ruling.”
Hon. Dr. Dominic Akuritinga Ayini Member of Parliament, for Bolgantanga East Constituency
Dr. Ayini elaborated on this point by arguing for an application for a stay of execution to be valid.
“ Fisrt of all, there has to be, you know, a judgment, right, an executable judgment, and ancillary orders or orders pursuant to that judgment which are about to be executed.”
Hon. Dr. Dominic Akuritinga Ayini Member of Parliament, for Bolgantanga East Constituency
He used the landmark case of the NDK vs the Supreme Court to support his argument, noting that the lack of an executable order renders the Court’s ruling procedurally unsound.
He also referred to older legal precedents, such as the 1963 case of Joseph and Jabali, to further illustrate the error in the Court’s decision.
A Call for Caution in Judicial Oversight
In conclusion, Dr. Ayini’s critique of the Supreme Court’s ruling highlighted significant concerns about the Court’s role in interpreting parliamentary procedures.
His argument underscored the importance of adhering to established legal principles and procedures, particularly when the judiciary intervenes in the operations of other branches of government.
The ruling, according to Ayini, reflected a misunderstanding of both procedural law and the balance of powers.
“The court grossly erred on two accounts,” he emphasized, calling for more cautious and deliberate judicial oversight in similar cases.
As Dr. Ayini puts it, in its “haste to assert its authority,” the Supreme Court may have erred on two critical fronts—the absence of an executable order and the procedural uncertainty surrounding the petition.
His remarks served as a reminder of the delicate interplay between the judiciary, legislature, and the broader constitutional framework in Ghana’s democracy.
READ ALSO; Davido, Wizkid Snub Each Other at London Nightclub
