Oquaye's ruling on vacant seat was unconstitutional - Godfred Dame

Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame has stated that a 2020 ruling by former Speaker of Parliament, Professor Aaron Mike Oquaye, declaring the seat of then Fomena MP, Andrews Amoako Asiamah, vacant was unconstitutional.

He made this assertion at the Supreme Court on Monday, November 11, 2024, while delivering submissions in a case seeking interpretation of Article 97(1)(g) and (h) of the 1992 Constitution.

Godfred Dame emphasised that Prof. Oquaye’s decision was unconstitutional and should not serve as a precedent for current parliamentary actions.

“No matter the number of times an unconstitutional act is repeated, it does not make it right,” he stated.

During the hearing, on Monday, November 11, 2024, there was no legal representation or filed response from Speaker Bagbin.

The seven-member Supreme Court panel, led by Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, nonetheless proceeded with the case, as the plaintiff, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, and the Attorney-General, who is the second defendant, had filed their submissions.

The hearing is scheduled to continue on Tuesday, November 12, 2024.

Background

The controversy arose after the Supreme Court stayed the Speaker's decision to declare four seats vacant. This decision followed actions by the affected MPs, who had decided to “cross the carpet” by filing to contest the December 7, 2024, parliamentary elections in different capacities—either as independents or on other political party tickets.

This move diverged from the grounds on which these MPs were originally elected to Parliament.

The seats affected include those held by Cynthia Morrison (Agona West), Kwadjo Asante (Suhum), Andrew Amoako Asiamah (Fomena), and Peter Kwakye Ackah (Amenfi Central).

The dispute has also led to a standoff between the two sides of Parliament over which party holds the Majority. While the Supreme Court’s ruling places the NDC in the Minority, the Speaker’s decision positions the NPP in the Minority.

The core contention in this case centres on whether the Supreme Court has the authority to overrule parliamentary decisions.

Watch the video below:



JKB/ ADG

You can watch a compilation of the Twi news below: