Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to give an advisory opinion - Martin Amidu

Former Attorney General and a former Special Prosecutor, Martin Amidu, has argued that the pending Supreme Court case on Article 66(2) of the Constitution should not proceed because, in his view, it raises no genuine constitutional dispute requiring interpretation.

Amidu said the constitutional provision limiting a president to two terms is clear and unambiguous.

“The meaning of the whole of Article 66… is clear and unambiguous,” he wrote in an open letter.

He argued that the plaintiff had failed to establish any competing interpretation of the constitutional provision.

“The plaintiff has been unable to demonstrate… a controversy in his action contending a rival interpretation or an ambiguity in the meaning of Article 66,” Amidu stated.

He also criticised the attempt to compare Article 66, which governs the tenure of an elected president, with Article 246 on the tenure of District Chief Executives.

“The use of an unentrenched provision… is like comparing apples with oranges,” he wrote.

Amidu added that he agreed with constitutional lawyers who have argued that the action effectively seeks an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court, which he believes falls outside the Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 2 and 130 of the Constitution.