The National Democratic Congress (NDC) Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central, Mahama Ayariga, has expressed his surprise over the Supreme Court’s directive concerning the Speaker of Parliament’s ruling that declared four parliamentary seats vacant.
In media interviews on Monday, October 21, 2024, Mr. Ayariga pointed out that the Supreme Court’s involvement, following an ex parte application by Alexander Afenyo-Markin of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), appeared to conflict with constitutional provisions protecting parliamentary proceedings from judicial interference. He referred to Articles 115 and 122 of the constitution, emphasizing that Parliament’s independence is safeguarded from intervention by the courts.
“This was surprising to us,” Ayariga said, “because the Constitution clearly states that Parliament is shielded from the interference of the judiciary. The Supreme Court, which is supposed to be the body that understands the Constitution better than anyone, should have recognized this.”
The issue arose after Afenyo-Markin filed a suit seeking an interpretation of Article 97 of the constitution, followed by an ex parte application last Friday. He requested the Supreme Court to halt the Speaker’s ruling, which declared the four seats vacant, pending a final determination. The Supreme Court granted the request, ruling that the four MPs could continue serving until the matter is resolved.
Ayariga expressed his dismay, stating that the court’s decision to intervene without engaging with Parliament was unexpected. “It surprises us that the Supreme Court would interfere with our proceedings without even listening to the Speaker’s side,” he added.
Despite the court’s directive, Ayariga made it clear that NDC members would continue to respect the Speaker’s ruling. “We listen to our Speaker, not the Supreme Court,” he said, underscoring the principle of parliamentary autonomy.
Ayariga also questioned the urgency with which the Supreme Court acted, suggesting that the case should have first been addressed by the High Court, as outlined in Article 99 of the constitution. “This is a matter that should have started at the High Court. The constitution is clear that questions regarding whether a seat is vacant are reserved for the High Court,” he explained.
He further elaborated on the procedural norms, stating that if there were any misunderstandings, the High Court could seek guidance from the Supreme Court. “The proper process would have been for the High Court to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for interpretation if needed,” Ayariga noted.
As the legal battle unfolds, Ayariga’s stance reflects the NDC’s commitment to upholding parliamentary independence in line with constitutional provisions.
