Menu

LINSOD Speaks on Supreme Court ruling on Vacant Seats controversy ,says they’ve genuine concerns and the Court must hear them

LINSOD Speaks on Supreme Court ruling on Vacant Seats controversy ,says they’ve genuine concerns and the Court must hear them

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

 

WE RESPECT THE SUPREME COURT, BUT WE HAVE GENUINE CONCERNS AND THE COURT MUST HEAR US
1.
As lawyers, we are not oblivious of our duty to respect and preserve the sanctity of the courts, and particularly the Supreme Court.

We have jealously tried to do so even under recent worrying and unusual circumstances in the application of the law, and departure from some well-settled legal principles by the Supreme Court in typically, political matters. We have very serious concerns with the courts, especially, with the Supreme Court, about how they adjudicate and determine the political matters that come before them.

We would humbly implore the Court to hear us and consider our grievances as important feedback on their administration of justice, especially in the political matters that come before them for determination.
2.
When in the ongoing impasse between the Judiciary (the Supreme Court)and the Legislature (the Speaker, in this case), the Court has ignored oroverlooked the fact that just as the courts have their rules of procedure,
the Legislature equally has its own Standing Orders pursuant to Article
110(1), which provides that “subject to the provisions of this Constitution,Parliament may, by standing orders, regulate its own procedure;” and
that Order 18 of Parliament’s Standing Orders states as: “The seat of a Member shall be declared vacant by Mr. Speaker under clause 1(b) to(h) of Article 97 of the Constitution,” we would have a concern.
3.
When in the impasse, the Court has completely overlooked the fact that in the performance of their duties, all the arms of government, including the Executive, the Judiciary (at all levels), and the Legislature are constantly implementing the provisions of the 1992 Constitution on daily basis, and that in a way means these arms of government are interpreting those provisions at each point in the performance of their functions, we would have a concern

4.
When the Court supported the attempt by Hon. Alexander AfenyoMarkin to stop the Speaker of Parliament from performing his duty underOrder 18 of the Standing Orders of Parliament, we have a genuineconcern.
5.
Similarly, when after the Speaker had performed his function under Order18 of the Standing Orders of Parliament, the Court hurriedly entertainedHon. Alexander Afenyo-Markin’s one-sided (ex parte) application andordered for a stay of the Speaker’s communication to the Members ofParliament even beyond the time limit requested by Mr. Afenyo-Markinhimself, we should have a genuine concern.
6.
When the Court failed to acknowledge, as widely accepted by allobjectively-minded persons (except for partisan NPP caucus inParliament), that the provisions in Article 97(1)(g) & (h) are very simpleand straightforward and do not require any sophisticated interpretationby a court, we have a genuine concern.
7.
When the Court failed to take important notice of the fact that after theSpeaker’s communication of the vacancy of the four seats as vacant,none of the affected Members of Parliament had complained, andnobody from any of their constituencies had complained, but the onlyone who had complained was the leader of the NPP caucus inParliament, who was aggrieved because the effect of the Speaker’scommunication was that the NPP Majority Caucus obviously becamethe minority, and the essence of the plaintiff’s action was for theSupreme Court to help him to restore his self-serving title through hiscaucus as the Majority Leader in Parliament, we would of course have aconcern.
8.
When the Court failed to acknowledge a precedent, as recent as 2020,which was instigated by the NPP caucus in Parliament, and in whose favour the then Speaker had ruled, and of which they had enjoyed the fruits, but have suddenly turned to the Court now to overturn thatprecedent, in order for them to be victorious again in the opposite situation, and the Court failed to resist the greed and double-standardattitude of the plaintiff, we have a genuine concern.
9.
When the Court overlooked the emphatic constitutional provision inArticle 99 of the 1992 Constitution that the determination of whether aperson has been validly elected to Parliament or the seat of a Memberof Parliament has become vacant shall be the responsibility of a highcourt, we have a genuine concern.

When in its anxiety to grant to the plaintiff more than what he had askedfor, the Court cited in support of its ruling, the unacceptability of the factthat the Speaker’s communication shall result in denying the constituentsof the affected MPs representation in Parliament for a few weeks, whenthe same Court has hitherto looked on while the people of Santrokofi,Akpafu, Lolobi, and Likpe (SALL) have been denied representation inParliament for a whole term of four years. And when the same Court hadalso previously injuncted Hon. Gyakye Quayson from representing hisconstituents in Parliament, as urgently desired by the ruling NPP, andsame was graciously granted them by the Supreme Court, we shouldobviously have a concern.
11.
When the National Security Minister had cause to caution that it was asecurity threat when it appeared that the ruling party had alwaysprevailed in every political matter in our courts, we should have aconcern.
12.
When the Mo Ibrahim Index on African Governance reported a dropfrom 100% to 50% in the autonomy of Ghana’s judiciary, meaning theconfidence of Ghanaians in the independence of the judiciary tointerpret laws without interference has been fractured considerably bythe current NPP regime, we have a concern.
13.
The enormity of the concerns stated in this statement puts us in great fearthat the Supreme Court may easily overturn a genuinely-won election bythe NDC and instead give victory to the NPP, and everyone shall betelling us that once it is a decision by the Supreme Court, we have nooption but to obey it. This is of serious concern to us, Lawyers in Search ofDemocracy (LINSOD).
14.
Most unfortunately, notwithstanding all of these genuine concerns by Ghanaians including lawyers, it seems we are being intimidated from speaking out to provide what many of us would consider as feedback for the courts.

Recently, the Attorney General and Minister for Justice hat urged the General Legal Council (GLC) to deal ruthlessly with lawyers who shall criticize the courts “unfairly.” We see this as an attemptto harass and bully lawyers for merely stating their disagreements withthe courts vehemently.
15.
Considering that this call has come from the Attorney General, Mr.Godfred Dame, who himself has recently misconducted himself grosslyby asking a party he was prosecuting to fraudulently acquire a medicalreport to deceive a court and excuse himself from court, amongother unethical conduct by him in that matter, and for which reason hewould have been disciplined in any fair and reasonable jurisdiction, our concerns have only deepened, and we are becoming hopeless.

For these reasons, we are unable to remain silent. We must be allowed toexpress our views freely to advance our democratic practice, andimprove on justice delivery for all of us, please.
Long live Ghana!

Long live our Democracy!
/Signed/
ERIC DELANYO ALIFO, ESQ.PRESIDENT, LINSOD
TEL: 024 901 6517

Popolar Stories

 

Related Stories

 

LINSOD Speaks on Supreme Court ruling on Vacant Seats controversy ,says they’ve genuine concerns and the Court must hear them

LINSOD Speaks on Supreme Court ruling on Vacant Seats controversy ,says they’ve genuine concerns and the Court must hear them

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

 

WE RESPECT THE SUPREME COURT, BUT WE HAVE GENUINE CONCERNS AND THE COURT MUST HEAR US
1.
As lawyers, we are not oblivious of our duty to respect and preserve the sanctity of the courts, and particularly the Supreme Court.

We have jealously tried to do so even under recent worrying and unusual circumstances in the application of the law, and departure from some well-settled legal principles by the Supreme Court in typically, political matters. We have very serious concerns with the courts, especially, with the Supreme Court, about how they adjudicate and determine the political matters that come before them.

We would humbly implore the Court to hear us and consider our grievances as important feedback on their administration of justice, especially in the political matters that come before them for determination.
2.
When in the ongoing impasse between the Judiciary (the Supreme Court)and the Legislature (the Speaker, in this case), the Court has ignored oroverlooked the fact that just as the courts have their rules of procedure,
the Legislature equally has its own Standing Orders pursuant to Article
110(1), which provides that “subject to the provisions of this Constitution,Parliament may, by standing orders, regulate its own procedure;” and
that Order 18 of Parliament’s Standing Orders states as: “The seat of a Member shall be declared vacant by Mr. Speaker under clause 1(b) to(h) of Article 97 of the Constitution,” we would have a concern.
3.
When in the impasse, the Court has completely overlooked the fact that in the performance of their duties, all the arms of government, including the Executive, the Judiciary (at all levels), and the Legislature are constantly implementing the provisions of the 1992 Constitution on daily basis, and that in a way means these arms of government are interpreting those provisions at each point in the performance of their functions, we would have a concern

4.
When the Court supported the attempt by Hon. Alexander AfenyoMarkin to stop the Speaker of Parliament from performing his duty underOrder 18 of the Standing Orders of Parliament, we have a genuineconcern.
5.
Similarly, when after the Speaker had performed his function under Order18 of the Standing Orders of Parliament, the Court hurriedly entertainedHon. Alexander Afenyo-Markin’s one-sided (ex parte) application andordered for a stay of the Speaker’s communication to the Members ofParliament even beyond the time limit requested by Mr. Afenyo-Markinhimself, we should have a genuine concern.
6.
When the Court failed to acknowledge, as widely accepted by allobjectively-minded persons (except for partisan NPP caucus inParliament), that the provisions in Article 97(1)(g) & (h) are very simpleand straightforward and do not require any sophisticated interpretationby a court, we have a genuine concern.
7.
When the Court failed to take important notice of the fact that after theSpeaker’s communication of the vacancy of the four seats as vacant,none of the affected Members of Parliament had complained, andnobody from any of their constituencies had complained, but the onlyone who had complained was the leader of the NPP caucus inParliament, who was aggrieved because the effect of the Speaker’scommunication was that the NPP Majority Caucus obviously becamethe minority, and the essence of the plaintiff’s action was for theSupreme Court to help him to restore his self-serving title through hiscaucus as the Majority Leader in Parliament, we would of course have aconcern.
8.
When the Court failed to acknowledge a precedent, as recent as 2020,which was instigated by the NPP caucus in Parliament, and in whose favour the then Speaker had ruled, and of which they had enjoyed the fruits, but have suddenly turned to the Court now to overturn thatprecedent, in order for them to be victorious again in the opposite situation, and the Court failed to resist the greed and double-standardattitude of the plaintiff, we have a genuine concern.
9.
When the Court overlooked the emphatic constitutional provision inArticle 99 of the 1992 Constitution that the determination of whether aperson has been validly elected to Parliament or the seat of a Memberof Parliament has become vacant shall be the responsibility of a highcourt, we have a genuine concern.

When in its anxiety to grant to the plaintiff more than what he had askedfor, the Court cited in support of its ruling, the unacceptability of the factthat the Speaker’s communication shall result in denying the constituentsof the affected MPs representation in Parliament for a few weeks, whenthe same Court has hitherto looked on while the people of Santrokofi,Akpafu, Lolobi, and Likpe (SALL) have been denied representation inParliament for a whole term of four years. And when the same Court hadalso previously injuncted Hon. Gyakye Quayson from representing hisconstituents in Parliament, as urgently desired by the ruling NPP, andsame was graciously granted them by the Supreme Court, we shouldobviously have a concern.
11.
When the National Security Minister had cause to caution that it was asecurity threat when it appeared that the ruling party had alwaysprevailed in every political matter in our courts, we should have aconcern.
12.
When the Mo Ibrahim Index on African Governance reported a dropfrom 100% to 50% in the autonomy of Ghana’s judiciary, meaning theconfidence of Ghanaians in the independence of the judiciary tointerpret laws without interference has been fractured considerably bythe current NPP regime, we have a concern.
13.
The enormity of the concerns stated in this statement puts us in great fearthat the Supreme Court may easily overturn a genuinely-won election bythe NDC and instead give victory to the NPP, and everyone shall betelling us that once it is a decision by the Supreme Court, we have nooption but to obey it. This is of serious concern to us, Lawyers in Search ofDemocracy (LINSOD).
14.
Most unfortunately, notwithstanding all of these genuine concerns by Ghanaians including lawyers, it seems we are being intimidated from speaking out to provide what many of us would consider as feedback for the courts.

Recently, the Attorney General and Minister for Justice hat urged the General Legal Council (GLC) to deal ruthlessly with lawyers who shall criticize the courts “unfairly.” We see this as an attemptto harass and bully lawyers for merely stating their disagreements withthe courts vehemently.
15.
Considering that this call has come from the Attorney General, Mr.Godfred Dame, who himself has recently misconducted himself grosslyby asking a party he was prosecuting to fraudulently acquire a medicalreport to deceive a court and excuse himself from court, amongother unethical conduct by him in that matter, and for which reason hewould have been disciplined in any fair and reasonable jurisdiction, our concerns have only deepened, and we are becoming hopeless.

For these reasons, we are unable to remain silent. We must be allowed toexpress our views freely to advance our democratic practice, andimprove on justice delivery for all of us, please.
Long live Ghana!

Long live our Democracy!
/Signed/
ERIC DELANYO ALIFO, ESQ.PRESIDENT, LINSOD
TEL: 024 901 6517

Related Stories
Popular Stories