The founder and leader of the Movement for Change, Alan Kyerematen, has condemned the ongoing stand-off between the Supreme Court and the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, stating that it is unhealthy for the country’s democracy.

At a press engagement on Thursday, October 31, the former trade minister, now an independent presidential candidate in the 2024 election, said that both Parliament and the Supreme Court have mishandled the case of the vacant seats.

“The current impasse between the Supreme Court and Parliament is unwarranted, unjustifiable, unproductive, and unhealthy for our fledgling democracy. Both the Supreme Court and Parliament must respect the Constitution and the laws of Ghana. This impasse amounts to grandstanding by both institutions.”

He described the Supreme Court’s decision to adhere to Alexander Afenyo-Markin’s application as unconstitutional, stating, “The Supreme Court, in its ruling on the application of the Leader of the NPP Caucus in Parliament, Hon. Alexander Afenyo-Markin, to reverse the ruling of the Speaker of Parliament regarding the status of the four Members of Parliament, was and is, in my considered and respectful opinion, unconstitutional, and could be described as an abuse of the power of the Supreme Court under Article 130 (1) to interpret provisions of the Constitution.”

Concerning Parliament, Mr Kyerematen argued that it would be a breach of the law should the Speaker reject the Supreme Court’s ruling, as Article 133 (1) of the Constitution of Ghana binds all individuals and state institutions to the Supreme Court.

“Parliament will be in breach of the law if it refuses to accept the ruling of the Supreme Court. Even if Parliament believes that the Supreme Court's decision is wrong, it must comply with the orders of the Court and adopt a judicial path to resolve the matter.”

He further stated that the Speaker had taken the right step in filing to the Supreme Court to reverse its initial ruling regarding the vacant seats. “Parliament took the right step, albeit belatedly, in filing an application for the review of the Supreme Court’s decision. However, it is my considered and respectful opinion that the course of action and the associated remedies endorsed in the writ of application from Parliament are meritorious and lack judicial grounding. By arguing that the decision of the Supreme Court cannot affect a non-judicial order of Parliament, it is a subversion of the rule of law and an abuse of the judicial process.”

Speaking on the basis of the law, he mentioned that Speaker Alban Bagbin has done nothing wrong in declaring the seats vacant. “The Speaker of Parliament is right to declare the four seats vacant and issue a consequential order for the Minority Caucus in Parliament to be considered as the Majority Caucus. This order, however, can only be made by the Speaker of Parliament if and only if the Supreme Court rules in favour of Parliament in the determination of the substantive case currently before it.”

Kyerematen then urged the various stakeholders involved in the matter to resolve it before the general election on December 7.

“With barely four weeks to the general elections, it is absolutely critical that all parties—namely the Judiciary, the legislature, the executive, and the citizenry of Ghana—work towards a resolution of this delicate matter to ensure a peaceful path towards the 2024 general elections in December.”

The Supreme Court has since adjourned the hearing to November 11, 2024.

Below is Mr Alan Kyerematen's full press statement:

STATEMENT TO THE MEDIA BY ALAN KYEREMATEN, FOUNDER AND LEADER, MOVEMENT FOR CHANGE (M4C) AND PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, ALLIANCE FOR REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE (ARC) ON THURSDAY 31ST OCTOBER, 2024

THE SUPREME COURT AND PARLIAMENT OF GHANA MUST BOTH RESPECT THE LAW AND WORK WITHIN ITS CONFINES

Members of the Media,

Good Morning,

I speak to you this morning not only in my capacity as a lawyer but also as a leading political figure in Ghana and a Presidential Candidate for the General Elections in December 2024.

The current impasse between the Supreme Court and Parliament is unwarranted, unjustifiable, unproductive, and unhealthy for our fledgling democracy. Both the Supreme Court and Parliament must respect the Constitution and the Laws of Ghana. The current impasse amounts to grandstanding by both institutions.

The concept of separation of powers and checks and balances between the various arms of Government are two sides of the same coin and logically reinforce each other. This must provide the context for resolving the dispute between the Supreme Court and Parliament.

1. The Case in Respect of the Supreme Court

i. The Supreme Court, in its ruling on the application of the Leader of the NPP Caucus in Parliament Hon. Alexander Afenyo-Markin, to reverse the ruling of the Speaker of Parliament, on the status of the four members of Parliament, was and is in my considered and respectful opinion unconstitutional, and could be described as an abuse of the power of the Supreme Court under Article 130 (1) to interpret provisions of the Constitution.

The Constitution of Ghana rightly so entrusts to the Supreme Court the responsibility for interpreting provisions of the Constitution. In this regard, the Supreme Court has both original and final jurisdiction for the interpretation of the Constitution.

Any application brought before the Court seeking interpretation of any provision of the Constitution to the extent, that the application is filed in line with the processes and procedures of the Supreme Court would be deemed to have been brought properly before the Supreme Court.

ii. Against this background, I hold a contrary view to the position adopted by the respected retired Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Atuguba, that the Supreme Court should have declined jurisdiction in the matter under reference. The Supreme Court was right in hearing the application to the extent that it was a request for interpretation of the Constitution.

iii. Article 97 (1) (g) and (h) of the Constitution, cannot be said to lack clarity and therefore does not lend itself to an enquiry of interpretation by the Supreme Court. The said provisions are very clear in both spirit and letter, and unconditionally impose a duty on the Speaker of Parliament to declare vacant, the seat of any sitting Member of Parliament, who decides to change their status in Parliament, either by declaring themselves as Independents, or by account of losing their membership of the Parties that originally sponsored their entry into Parliament.

For the avoidance of doubt, Article 97 (1) (g) and (h), reads as follows:

Article “97. (1) “A member of Parliament shall vacate his seat in Parliament –

(g) if he leaves the party of which he was a member at the time of his election to Parliament to join another party or seeks to remain in Parliament as an independent member….

(h) if he was elected a member of Parliament as an independent candidate and joined a political party.”

iv. It is obvious from the mandatory language of the provision referred to above, and also by the Rules of Interpretation under Common Law, that no issue arises of interpretation, requiring the Supreme Court to exercise its discretion. The Supreme Court’s mandate to interpret provisions of the Constitution, is not to be exercised capriciously, particularly in very sensitive contexts, with implications for subverting the rule of law and obstructing the principle of Separation of Powers.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Indeed if there is no issue of interpretation, then the posture of the Supreme Court, in the matter under reference, raises serious questions about whether or not the Court is interfering in the work of Parliament.

2. The Case in Respect of Parliament

i. By the dictates of the Rule of Law and Article 133 (1) of the Constitution of Ghana, any decision by the Supreme Court can only be reviewed and varied by the Supreme Court itself. In this regard, individuals, Judicial and non-Judicial bodies, including Independent Constitutional Bodies (ICBs), and the various arms of Government, are all bound unconditionally, by the decisions of the Supreme Court.

ii. In cases where any party in the categories referred to above, is aggrieved by the decisions of the Supreme Court, the only recourse available to such a party, is to apply to the Supreme Court for a revision of its decision.

iii. In light of the above, Parliament will be in breach of the Law, if it refuses to accept the ruling of the Supreme Court.

Even if Parliament is of the view that the decision of the Supreme Court is wrong, it must comply with the orders of the Court, and adopt a judicial path to the resolution of the matter.

iv. Against this background, Parliament took the right step, albeit belatedly, in filing an application for the review of the Supreme Court decision. However, it is my considered and respectful opinion that the course of action and the associated remedies endorsed on the writ of application of Parliament, are unmeritorious and lack judicial grounding. By arguing that the decision of the Supreme Court cannot affect a non-judicial order of Parliament, is a subversion of the Rule of Law and an abuse of the judicial process.

v. For the avoidance of doubt, all individuals, legal personalities, judicial and non-judicial bodies, Independent Constitutional Bodies, and the various arms of Government are bound Stricto Senso, by the decisions of the Supreme Court. As indicated earlier, any aggrieved individuals or bodies as referred to above, can only apply to the same Supreme Court for a review of its decisions. The claim by Parliament that it is a “Master of Its own Rules,” has no merit in law and seeks to undermine the very spirit underpinning the concept of checks and balances, between the various arms of Government.

In light of all of the above, the Speaker of Parliament is right to declare the four seats vacant and issue a consequential order for the Minority Caucus in Parliament to be considered as the Majority Caucus in Parliament.

This order, however, can only be made by the Speaker of Parliament, if and only if, the Supreme Court makes a ruling in favour of Parliament in the determination of the substantive case currently before it.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
With barely four weeks to the General Elections, it is absolutely critical that all parties, i.e.: the Judiciary, the Legislature, the Executive and the citizenry of Ghana, work towards a resolution of this delicate matter, to ensure a peaceful path towards the 2024 General Elections in December.

I thank you for your kind attention.

God Bless our Homeland Ghana and make our Nation great and strong!