Lawyer Thaddeus Sory, legal representative of the Speaker of Parliament in the vacant seat issue, has clarified that the recent Supreme Court ruling includes no order against Speaker Alban S.K Bagbin.
He emphasized that there is no directive to allow the MPs into Parliament or to recognize them, as previously indicated in the Court’s majority decision.
Therefore, Sory stated, the order of execution for the Speaker’s ruling is now effectively “spent”.
“The Supreme Court’s decision…is interesting. The majority decision raises a number of legal issues. Since this is a public and not legal platform I will discuss the most basic but fundamental issue for debate.
“In every case before the courts, the court’s final judgment is based on the case presented to the court contained in the original papers filed by the plaintiff before the court. If the facts on which the plaintiff initially presented their case to the court change, and they want the court’s decision to reflect the changed circumstances, they must formally change their original case by way of an amendment. The Supreme Court rules allow the plaintiff to amend their statement of case”.
Lawyer Thaddeus Sory
Lawyer Sory further explained that the majority judgment acknowledged that when the Plaintiff filed the case on 15/10/2024, the Speaker’s statement responding to the NDC caucus leader’s remarks had not yet been made (issued on 17/10/2024).
According to him, Justice Darko Asare admitted that the Plaintiff’s reliefs did not seek to nullify the Speaker’s statement, as it was not part of the original case.
He further noted that Justice Darko Asare admitted the majority’s concerns arose from events that occurred after the Plaintiff filed the case.
Sory indicated that, however, these new facts were not formally added to the substantive case but instead introduced through an interlocutory ex parte application, which the Court addressed separately. “The substantive case however remained the same”.
Sory explained that Justice Darko Asare acknowledged that the Speaker’s statement, issued two days after the writ was filed, was the basis for the Supreme Court’s decision to stay execution of the statement.
This statement, according to him, declared the affected MPs could no longer represent their constituents, and Parliament was informed accordingly.
He added that the Court justified its jurisdiction over the Speaker’s response, citing its “intimate connection” to their authority and its “inextricable link” to the pleaded facts and issues.
SC Aknowledges No Cause of Action In Plaintiff’s Case
Furthermore, Lawyer Thaddeus Sory noted that Justice Darko Asare, in the lead judgment, acknowledged there was no cause of action justifying the Plaintiff’s, Hon. Alexander Afenyo-Markin, request for a stay of execution.
According to him, this admission implies that the Plaintiff’s case disclosed no cause of action, as it was not formally amended to reflect new developments.
Sory pointed out that aware of this issue, the majority decision considered an unamended case to address the Plaintiff’s claims before the Court.
“In their judgments therefore, the majority decisions [both Darko Asare and Asiedu JJSC] only expressed their disagreements with the conclusion reached by the Speaker in his response to the Leader’s statement. Their final orders never pronounced that the Speaker’s response to the Leader’s statements are null and void and of no effect.
“Darko Asare JSC’s parting words were as follows: ‘An order declaring the interpretation placed on Article 97(1)(g) and (h) as inconsistent with the true meaning and import of Article 97(1) (g) and (h) of the 1992 Constitution’”.
Lawyer Thaddeus Sory
Sory further argued that Justice Darko Asare’s judgment interprets the constitutional provisions but stops short of declaring the Speaker’s decision null and void.
He noted that the final orders omit the ex parte orders the Plaintiff unexpectedly obtained, which defied standard procedural rules.
Sory added that Justice Asiedu also concluded his judgment by disagreeing with the Speaker’s ruling that MPs vacated their seats merely by filing to run in the upcoming election under different party tickets.
He noted that Justice Asiedu, for this reason, granted the first relief requested in the Plaintiff’s writ.
“His final words [order] however were that he only grant relief one of the Plaintiff’s reliefs. None of these reliefs [sought] to declare the Speaker’s response to the Leader’s statement null and void”.
Lawyer Thaddeus Sory
Sory noted that after the Supreme Court issues a declaration under its original jurisdiction, Article 2 Clause (2) of the Constitution requires it to make orders or give directions to ensure that the declaration is enforced.
He emphasized that only when such orders are issued, and subsequently disobeyed, can non-compliance be considered a high crime under the Constitution.
Therefore, Sory maintained that, as there is no order against the Speaker, the Speaker cannot be deemed to have either obeyed or disobeyed any directive.
READ ALSO:
