Prominent private legal practitioner, Kwame Akuffo, has raised serious concerns about the Supreme Court’s approach to the legal proceedings involving the recent saga of vacant parliamentary seats in Ghana.
His critique was focused on what he deems inconsistencies in the application of legal principles, particularly with respect to a Stay of Execution application made in the case of Alexander Afenyo-Markin. In an opinion piece, Lawyer Akuffo laid bare the procedural and jurisdictional errors that, in his view, have marred the legal process and could set dangerous precedents for future cases.
“The importance of consistency in the application of the principles of law is necessary as inconsistency tends to undermine the coherence of the law and generates a mass of disparate special rules distinct from those known under the law.”
Kwame Akuffo, Private Legal Practitioner
He believes the Supreme Court’s handling of the Afenyo-Markin application was flawed both procedurally and substantively, and these flaws may set a legal precedent that could cause confusion in future legal proceedings, particularly in cases involving parliamentary affairs.
“A party cannot seek an Application for Stay of Execution in respect of a matter which is not a Judgment or a Court order. The Speaker’s order is not of such,” Akuffo asserted.
However, in this case, there was no such court order or judgment. The application, he explained, was based on the Speaker of Parliament’s declaration of certain parliamentary seats as vacant—a declaration that Akuffo argued is not a judicial order.
By entertaining the application, Akuffo believes the Supreme Court acted beyond its jurisdiction, creating a procedural anomaly. The speaker’s declaration, he insisted, does not constitute an enforceable court order that can be stayed, thus making the application for a Stay of Execution fundamentally flawed.
He further emphasized, “It is absurd to seek a Stay of Execution in a case in which the Court has not made any orders.”
Constitutional Breach and Jurisdictional Concerns
Perhaps the most critical aspect of Kwame Akuffo’s argument centered on constitutional jurisdiction.
“The Court’s assumption of jurisdiction in the face of Article 99… leaves a lot of unanswered questions,” Akuffo remarked, suggesting that the Court overstepped its constitutional mandate.
According to Akuffo, this article makes it clear that such matters fall under the jurisdiction of the High Court, with any appeals or further legal proceedings referred to the Supreme Court.
In his view, the Supreme Court’s decision to entertain the Stay of Execution application without having been properly referred by the High Court raises concerns about a potential breach of constitutional procedure.
Akuffo argued that the legal complexities surrounding parliamentary seats must be handled with utmost care, as they strike at the heart of Ghana’s democracy and governance.
By ignoring the proper referral process outlined in the Constitution, the Supreme Court, he believes, may have inadvertently violated the constitutional separation of powers.
Kwame Akuffo warned that the procedural inconsistencies and jurisdictional overreach in the Supreme Court’s handling of the case could create a dangerous precedent for future legal disputes, particularly those involving parliamentary matters.
Akuffo insisted that clarity and adherence to legal principles are essential for maintaining public confidence in the judicial system. He called for a more rigorous approach to the application of legal principles, particularly when it comes to cases with significant political and constitutional implications.
His argument underscored the need for a more cautious, measured approach to legal proceedings, particularly in cases that carry such significant constitutional and political implications. As Akuffo aptly puts it, “The law must remain consistent, or it risks falling apart under the weight of its own contradictions.”
