Richard Dela Sky, an astute lawyer, has expressed his disagreement with Justice Tanko Amadu’s ultimate conclusion regarding the ruling on vacant seats in Parliament by the Supreme Court.

However, Dela Sky acknowledged that Justice Amadu’s jurisdictional perspective is noteworthy.

He agreed with Justice Amadu’s position that the High Court is the appropriate forum for initially determining any question concerning whether a vacancy has occurred in Parliament.

“Respectfully, the learned Tanko Amadu JSC, in his thoughtful and formidable dissenting opinion in Afenyo-Markin Vs The Speaker and Another, raises an important jurisdictional question that merits careful consideration.
“His core contention, in my respectful view, is that the matter should have been initiated in the High Court, which he views as the appropriate forum of first instance for such proceedings under Article 99(1) of the Constitution”.
Richard Dela Sky

He explained that Justice Tanko Amadu’s position is based on the argument that the Majority’s decision to hear and decide the case on its merits was an action “per incuriam”, effectively bypassing the High Court’s jurisdiction.

According to Dela Sky, Justice Amadu’s approach advocates a procedural framework where such matters should first be initiated at the High Court under Article 99.

He pointed out that in Amadu’s view if the constitutional interpretation of Article 97(1)(g)(h) becomes necessary, the presiding judge could then refer the matter to the Supreme Court, as seen in the Ex-Parte Zanetor Rawlings case.

However, Dela Sky noted that Justice Asiedu JSC offers a compelling counterargument.

According to him, Justice Asiedu emphasized that the Constitution contains no provision requiring individuals to first file a suit in the High Court before seeking the Supreme Court’s interpretation or enforcement of a constitutional provision.

Such an approach, he observed, would be unnecessarily circuitous. “Any such condition imposed on Ghanaians is, in my view, and, with the greatest respect, not sanctioned by our Constitution.”

Dela Sky Supports Asiedu’s Efficient Access to Constitutional Justice

Furthermore, Richard Dela Sky emphasized that Justice Asiedu’s reasoning is particularly compelling, as it upholds both the “letter and spirit” of constitutional access to justice.

He explained that this perspective ensures individuals can directly approach the appropriate forum for relief without unnecessary procedural detours.

According to Dela Sky, this approach not only reinforces the principle of fair access to justice but also promotes judicial efficiency, preventing delays that could arise from circuitous processes.

“Requiring preliminary High Court proceedings in matters primarily concerning constitutional interpretation would impose an unnecessary procedural burden that finds no explicit support in the constitutional framework.
“Such a requirement would potentially impede the efficient administration of justice and create procedural hurdles not contemplated by the Constitution’s drafters”.
Richard Dela Sky

Sky also contended that while Justice Amadu’s insistence on adhering to jurisdictional boundaries is both laudable and supported by a wealth of legal precedent, the direct approach taken by the Majority is more appropriate given the unique circumstances of this case.

He explained that the Majority’s method not only addresses the specific demands of the matter at hand but also aligns with the overarching constitutional mandate to ensure that questions of constitutional interpretation are resolved expeditiously.

Sky emphasized that, in such cases, prioritizing timely and effective justice serves the greater purpose of upholding constitutional principles while preventing unnecessary procedural delays.

He stated that this approach upholds the Supreme Court’s role as the ultimate authority on constitutional interpretation and enforcement, ensuring that its mandate to safeguard the principles of the Constitution remains intact.

Additionally, Sky indicated that it emphasizes the importance of delivering justice in a manner that is both accessible and efficient, preventing unnecessary delays that could undermine public confidence in the judicial process.

He asserted that By balancing the need for constitutional clarity with the practical demands of timely adjudication, this position reinforces the Court’s pivotal role in maintaining the rule of law and protecting the rights of all citizens.