A retired Supreme Court Justice William Atuguba provided insights into the implications of the Supreme Court’s declaration in the case regarding vacant parliamentary seats.
Justice Atuguba, who served on the Supreme Court bench for over two decades, explained that while the Supreme Court’s declaration has legal force, it lacks enforceability without accompanying orders.
The Constitution itself says the Supreme Court shall, for the purposes of a declaration, and across one of this article, make such orders and give such directions as it may consider appropriate for giving effect or enabling effect to be given to the declaration,” Justice Atuguba stated.
He emphasised that the “bare declaration” issued by the Supreme Court would require further orders to be effectively enforced, noting that the “enforceability aspect of it is absent” without such additional directives from the court.
“Article 2 doesn’t stop at declaration. It goes further to say the Supreme Court shall, for the purposes of a declaration, and Clause 1 of this article make such orders and give such directions as it may consider appropriate for giving effect or enabling effect to be given to the declaration so made. So the Constitution itself it’s there that the bare declaration to be effective needs further orders…”
Speaking on JoyNews’ Newfile he further indicated that “it has legal force, but the enforceability aspect of it is absent.”
The Supreme Court’s declaration was made in response to a case challenging the Speaker of Parliament’s ruling on the vacation of certain parliamentary seats.
Also on the show was the Dean of the UPSA Law School, Prof Kofi Abotsi.
He was concerned over the Supreme Court’s failure to clearly outline what constitutes the vacation of a parliamentary seat in its recent ruling against the Speaker of Parliament.
The court’s decision overturned Speaker Alban Bagbin’s declaration of vacancies for MPs seeking to contest upcoming elections on the tickets of parties other than those under which they were elected.
However, Prof Abotsi argues that while the court clarified what does not constitute a vacation of a seat, it did not comprehensively define the circumstances that would meet this criterion.
Prof Kofi Abotsi noted that “The court spoke in negative terms, explaining what does not amount to vacating a seat.”
“However, it failed to provide a positive statement detailing what exactly constitutes the vacation of a seat. This leaves a significant gap, especially when the Constitution uses the phrase ‘leaving the party.’”
According to him, this ambiguity creates room for future disputes, as the ruling does not provide clear guidelines for determining whether an MP has vacated their seat by leaving their party.