The Vice President of IMANI Centre for Policy and Education and seasoned legal practitioner, Kofi Bentil has affirmed the Supreme Court’s jurisdictional authority over the Speaker of Parliament’s interpretation of Article 97 of Ghana’s Constitution declaring four parliamentary seats vacant.
In a statement responding to a question by renowned legal practitioner and journalist, Samson Lardy Anyenini, Mr Bentil defended the Supreme Court’s authority to preside over an interpretative case regarding Article 97 of Ghana’s Constitution.
“Question from Samson Anyenini: ‘Kofi Bentil How will you answer the substantive or foundational jurisprudential interpretative point of the special provision prevailing over the general provision on the jurisdiction question? Certainly the legal basis or part of the basis for the two justices declining jurisdiction. Just interested in your view. Generalia specialibus non derogant’.
“My answer to Samson Anyenini: I have always held that there was express jurisdiction because this was an interpretation issue; as in, the Speaker interpreted Art 97 and gave effect to it.”
Kofi Bentil, Legal Practitioner and Vice President of IMANI Centre for Policy and Education
In a strong defence to his position, Mr Bentil argued that from the beginning, it was evident that the Supreme Court held jurisdiction over the matter, as it dealt with the interpretation of Article 97 — a constitutional responsibility that falls under the Court’s mandate.
He maintained that the Speaker of Parliament’s interpretation of Article 97, subsequently enacted, was erroneous and thus required Supreme Court oversight. “There was express jurisdiction because this was an interpretation issue; as in, the Speaker interpreted Article 97 and gave effect to it. That interpretation was wrong and so set jurisdiction for the Supreme Court,” Lawyer Kofi Bentil declared.
The Case for ‘Seizing’ Jurisdiction
The Vice President of the IMANI Centre for Policy and Education further stressed that due to the high stakes — disruptions in Parliament, potential threats to legislative processes, and broader state governance implications — the Supreme Court’s involvement was warranted.
He added that even if there had been doubt about jurisdiction, the significance and urgent implications of the Speaker’s ruling justified the Supreme Court’s proactive engagement.
“If the matter was sent to the High Court, it would have returned to the Supreme Court, so they had real grounds to assume jurisdiction and avoid time wasting in a tense and crucial time as this”.
Kofi Bentil, Legal Practitioner and Vice President of IMANI Centre for Policy and Education
Lawyer Kofi Bentil also noted that the concept of ‘seizing jurisdiction’ was significant in light of initial discussions surrounding the Supreme Court’s authority. With time and further examination, Mr Bentil remained convinced that the Court’s jurisdiction was clear and beyond question.
Freedom of Association and Parliamentary Stability
Moreover, the renowned legal practitioner pointed out that the actions taken by the four parliamentarians were legally supported by the principles of freedom of association and the doctrine of necessity.
He argued that the Constitution’s drafters would not have intended for a singular act to disrupt current parliamentary operations, particularly when the effects would be more applicable to future legislative periods.
“I argued that all the actions of the four parliamentarians were well supported in law under freedom of association and the doctrine of necessity,” Kofi Bentil emphasized. He highlighted the historical and contextual aspects of cross-carpeting laws, noting that these should have influenced the decision to avoid unintended disruptions.
A Respectful Dissent on the Justices’ Stance
Addressing the two justices’ refusal to assume jurisdiction in the Afenyo Markin Vrs. the Speaker of Parliament, Lawyer Kofi Bentil expressed a respectful disagreement, reiterating that the Supreme Court had legitimate authority in the matter.
He pointed out that further scrutiny would continue to affirm the clarity of the Court’s jurisdiction, making the distinction between general and specific provisions irrelevant.
“The issue of generality and specificity doesn’t even help because this was a straight shot. The Supreme Court had jurisdiction,” Kofi Bentil concluded.
READ ALSO: Springfield Nears Completion of Afina Well Appraisal Drilling
