According to the report from the Citinewsroom, In a recent legal affirmation, renowned constitutional lawyer Bobby Banson endorsed the Supreme Court’s decision to reject Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin’s application seeking to overturn a ruling that barred him from declaring four parliamentary seats vacant.
Banson lauded the court’s decision as comprehensive and well-reasoned, highlighting the judiciary’s rigorous approach to resolving such critical legislative issues.
Speaker Bagbin’s application aimed to reverse an earlier Supreme Court ruling that prevented him from declaring the Agona West, Fomena, Amenfi Central, and Suhum seats vacant.
However, on Wednesday, October 30, the Supreme Court upheld its initial decision, maintaining that the contested seats remain occupied pending further determinations.
Reflecting on the ruling, Banson commended the judiciary for its thorough handling of the case, stating that it “meticulously addressed all significant issues raised by both parties.”
He emphasized the court’s diligence in assessing each argument and providing transparent justifications, remarking, “The ruling is very solid on the basis that it covered every single issue that has been raised in the contentions summarised in the application that had been filed to set aside the orders of the Supreme Court on October 18.”
Banson further underscored the ruling’s detailed approach, explaining, “The ruling addressed each issue that had been raised and provided its reasons why it agreed or disagreed with either the applicant or the defendant on the other side.”
This, he asserted, reinforces the legitimacy of the decision as “a solid decision that has been rendered.”
Addressing the court’s stance on parliamentary representation, Banson noted, “The Supreme Court was of the view that before you can deny people that representation, you must first conclude that a Member of Parliament who has been elected by the people has breached the provisions in the article that are the subject of the suit.”
He clarified that, in light of various interpretations surrounding the constitutional articles in question, the court advised caution, stressing that it was premature to conclude that MPs had definitively violated constitutional provisions without a confirmed interpretation from the Supreme Court. “Do not hasten in concluding that they have breached articles but let the Supreme Court confirm the interpretation,” he added.
This ruling, Banson affirmed, underscores the judiciary’s dedication to ensuring a fair legislative process and protecting the rights of elected representatives, setting a significant precedent in the interpretation of parliamentary seat vacancy.