This latest development follows a suit initiated by Effutu MP Alexander Afenyo-Markin, challenging the Speaker’s declaration.
The Speaker’s legal team argued that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the matter, alongside other points raised in court.
However, after hearing arguments from all parties, including the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, the Court ruled that its previous decision to suspend the Speaker’s declaration was legally sound, stating that the Speaker’s appeal was “without merit.”
“We have considered the application, and we have come to the conclusion that the grounds supporting the application have no merit,” Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo affirmed in her ruling.
In a related issue, the Court also dismissed an objection from Thaddeus Sory, counsel for the Speaker, who argued that Justice Ernest Gaewu, a member of the panel, had a conflict of interest due to his past candidacy with the New Patriotic Party (NPP).
The Court rejected this claim, maintaining that Justice Gaewu’s impartiality remained intact.
Previously, on October 18, the Supreme Court directed that the four MPs continue their parliamentary duties until the case is resolved, effectively halting the Speaker’s initial declaration on October 17.
This ruling is particularly significant as both sides in Parliament currently claim a majority.
Additionally, the Speaker’s office raised concerns over the legal process, alleging improper service of the writ to Parliament.
According to the Speaker, service of the writ on October 16, 2024, by three court bailiffs at the Legal Services Office of the Parliamentary Service violated Article 117 of the 1992 Constitution, which exempts members of Parliament from legal service processes while attending to parliamentary duties.
This position was reinforced by a circular from Judicial Secretary Justice Cyra Pamela C.A. Korangteng, issued on July 12, 2024, which reminded court registrars of the constitutional protection afforded to MPs under Articles 117 and 118 against service of process and arrest during their official duties.
The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the judiciary’s firm stance on the procedural and constitutional aspects surrounding the Speaker’s declaration, as it continues to assess the broader implications of the dispute.
