Martin Amidu, former Special Prosecutor, has stated that with less than two weeks before the 7 December elections, the Majority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin’s request to recall Parliament seems impractical unless there is a prior agreement to fast-track the agenda.
He noted that this would not be the first time the Eighth Parliament has rushed significant matters past the electorate.
Amidu emphasized that most MPs, focused on campaigning in their constituencies, are unlikely to prioritize the recall, especially as non-MP candidates continue their election campaigns. He questioned the necessity and timing of such a session.
“The Majority Leader is pretending not to be aware of the fact that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Alexander Afenyo Markin v 1. Speaker of Parliament 2. The Attorney-General given on 12 November 2024, is a per incuriam judgment, (a judgment made without due regard to the facts, the 1992 Constitution, and the laws binding upon the court).
“The Court failed or refused to consider the fundamental issue of whether the Plaintiff had a present cause of action at the time he issued the writ and statement of claim and its accompanying statement of case in the Supreme Court on 15 October 2024. The certified copy of the writ and statement of claim and the accompanying unverified statement of the plaintiff’s case was prepared, dated, and signed by Solicitor F. Paa Kwasi Abaidoo of Dehyena Chambers, Accra, on 14 October 2024 when the Minority Leader had not tabled any motion before Parliament on the alleged vacant seats”.
Martin Amidu
Martin Amidu argued that the Supreme Court case filed on 15 October 2024 by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin against the Speaker lacked a valid cause of action.
At the time, the Speaker had not ruled on the debated motion and only issued his decision on 17 October 2024, meaning the suit, filed two days earlier, was premature and constitutionally baseless.
He noted that Consequently, all subsequent court decisions and orders stemming from the suit are void, though the Speaker had to comply until overturned.
Amidu also highlighted procedural flaws, noting that the Majority Leader’s statement of the plaintiff’s case, filed under Rule 46 of the Supreme Court Rules, was not verified by affidavit as required by law.
Despite the Speaker raising this issue, the Court failed to address it, both during interlocutory proceedings and the final judgment.
He pointed out that Justice Tanko Amadu’s dissent acknowledged this flaw but missed key procedural aspects, as he was not part of the earlier panel. “The dissenting justices who were not part of the interlocutory panel of five (5) justices cannot be blamed because the substantive case did not include the processes filed in the interlocutory applications”.
Amidu Condemns Supreme Court Judgment as Procedurally Flawed
Moreover, Martin Amidu criticized the Supreme Court’s 12 November 2024 judgment as per incuriam for failing to address the lack of a verifying affidavit in the Majority Leader’s case or waive it under Rule 75.
He also condemned the inclusion of interlocutory materials in the substantive case, which violated procedural rules, noting that such rulings cannot bind substantive judgments.
The former Special Prosecutor further emphasized that the Supreme Court is bound by its precedent that interlocutory orders merge into the final judgment and lose their standalone effect.
He argued that the 12 November 2024 judgment, issued per incuriam, lacked support from the plaintiff’s reliefs and amounted to an advisory opinion, which is not recognized under Articles 2 and 130 of the 1992 Constitution.
“…But it is insulting to the electorate to be told after the open and nauseating acrimony exhibited by the 8th Parliament to state and have the temerity to make public a memorandum to the Speaker stating that: ‘Let us seize this opportunity to demonstrate to the people of Ghana that their Parliament can rise above partisan considerations to serve their interest effectively’.
“The earlier the 8th Parliament clears off from the political scene the better for the 1992 Constitution. Thank God, the 7 December 2024 election is just a stone’s throw away to save the disappointed people of Ghana”.
Martin Amidu
Amidu argued that recalling Parliament for just two days before the 2024 elections serves no purpose beyond benefiting MPs financially and wastes public funds.
He noted that, aside from approving a provisional budget for the next government, there is no emergency to justify this session.
Amidu lamented that the ongoing Bawku crisis, which has devastated communities in northern regions, is not even on the agenda.
He speculated that the Speaker and Parliament’s leadership may have pre-approved the Majority Leader’s request before it was made public. “…I cannot wait to see the back of this Government and Parliament to save our Constitution from the trajectory of implosion it is being pushed into”.
He emphasized the importance of always putting Ghana first.
READ ALSO: Insurance Penetration Rate in Ghana to Hover Around 1.0% in 2024 – Deloitte
