The Supreme Court has dismissed an objection from the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, regarding Justice Ernest Yao Gaewu’s inclusion on the panel hearing a case that challenges the Speaker’s declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacant.
Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, leading the panel, described the objection as “misconceived,” affirming that the case addresses constitutional matters rather than partisan issues.
The Chief Justice dismissed concerns over Justice Gaewu’s previous political affiliation with the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP), asserting that his role on the panel would not compromise judicial impartiality.
Speaker Bagbin’s counsel, Thaddeus Sory, argued that Justice Gaewu’s past candidacy with the NPP presented a conflict of interest.
However, Chief Justice Torkornoo emphasized that the judiciary includes individuals with varied political histories, noting that judicial integrity and the commitment to constitutional interpretation supersede past political affiliations.
The court ultimately ruled that Justice Gaewu would remain on the panel.
Additionally, the court addressed a separate motion from Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame, who sought to strike out two paragraphs of the Speaker’s affidavit.
Dame argued that paragraphs 21 and 49 contained “scandalous and abusive” language, asserting that these passages unfairly criticized the Chief Justice and implied potential bias if the court upheld the Speaker’s decision. Chief Justice Torkornoo indicated that this objection would be reviewed in the final judgment.
In further procedural debates, Sory filed a motion to overturn the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, arguing that the Speaker was not given an adequate opportunity to be heard on the ex parte motion, thereby breaching natural justice principles.
Representing the plaintiff, Paa Kwesi Abaidoo, alongside Attorney General Dame, defended the court’s jurisdiction, stating that the Supreme Court’s authority on constitutional interpretation had been correctly invoked.
They argued that the ex parte motion was critical to preventing potential harm to parliamentary representation in the constituencies affected by the Speaker’s ruling.
Dame also criticized the Speaker’s motion to set aside the court’s ruling as procedurally flawed, asserting that it failed to meet the conditions for invoking the court’s review jurisdiction under Article 133(1) of the Constitution.
He warned that if the Speaker’s motion were upheld, it might undermine the Supreme Court’s role as the ultimate interpreter of constitutional matters.
The court is expected to deliver its final ruling on these preliminary objections soon, providing clarification on the constitutional parameters regarding parliamentary seat vacancies and affirming the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in such disputes.
