The Supreme Court has described as disingenuous and misleading the suggestion that its jurisdiction cannot be invoked for constitutional interpretation because the High Court holds jurisdiction over election disputes and the vacation of parliamentary seats.

According to the Supreme Court, Article 99 grants the High Court the authority to adjudicate matters concerning the validity of elections or the vacation of seats by Members of Parliament (MP) and the Speaker. However, this provision does not strip the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the Constitution.

Delivering its ruling on the vacant seats on Wednesday, October 30, Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo addressed objections to the procedure used to serve the Speaker of Parliament, citing administrative circulars from the Chief Justice issued in 2021 and 2024.

• Read also: Seat vacancy controversy: Supreme Court rejects Speaker’s application to set aside its earlier ruling

"It is therefore disingenuous and wrong, including being an act of disinformation for the argument to be presented that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court could never be evoked to determine a constitutional interpretation because of the High Court's jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes on elections and vacation of seats of Members of Parliament under Article 99.

"Our clear view is that Article 99 gives the jurisdiction to hear cases involving questions on the validity of election or vacation of seats of a Member of Parliament and the Speaker. It does not in any way take away the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to interpret and enforce any provision of the Constitution, including Article 99 itself," the Chief Justice said.

She continued; “We are satisfied that administrative procedures cannot override the potency of legality, and every procedure used by the Supreme Court to serve the processes of the speaker of parliament were actually in conformity with law and the seculars issued by the Chief Justices in 2021 and 2024."

She noted that the Speaker had urged the Supreme Court to violate the rules of natural justice and rules exercising discretion in its October 18, 2024 ex parte ruling, which ordered a stay of execution on the Speaker's decision to declare four parliamentary seats vacant.

The Chief Justice explained that the law requires a stay of execution to be granted only under exceptional circumstances where failure to do so would cause irreparable harm.

• Read also: Vacant seats case: Supreme Court adjourns case to November 11

She clarified that the ruling arose from concerns about the Speaker's declaration of the four seats as vacant, which would prevent the affected MPs from continuing to represent their constituencies.

"The four constituencies in the Western region, Ashanti Region, Central Region and Eastern regions of Parliament are made up of hundreds of thousands of Ghanaians who had cued to elect these members of parliament to represent their interests in Parliament as their voices.

“By declaring that their duly elected representatives in Parliament had vacated their seats for acts that were interpreted within the light of Article 97 (1)(g), by the speaker, the speaker was actually enforcing this interpretation of Article 97 (1)(g) against those hundreds of thousands of Ghanaians and not just the four people that sit in Parliament.

“He was also doing so at a time that from the official records of Parliament presented to the Supreme Court, the speaker knew that a contrary interpretation was being placed on the same constitutional provision and that the Supreme Court jurisdiction had been invoked to provide the correct interpretation,” she said.

Chief Justice Torkornoo further stated that no by-elections could lawfully be held to replace the affected MPs between October 17, 2024, and January 7, 2025, a factor that weighed heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision to grant the stay of execution.

“This exceptional circumstance arising from the outcome of the ruling weighed on the mind of the supreme court to grant an order directing a stay of execution of the ruling of the Speaker on 17th October 2024.”