ALEXNDER AFENYO MARKIN v. SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT & ATTORNEY - GENERAL
2024
CORAM
- TORKORNOO C.J., (PRESIDING), OWUSU J.S.C., ASIEDU J.S.C., GAEWU J.S.C., DARKO ASARE J.S.C
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Civil Procedure
2024
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court considers an ex parte application aimed at staying the Speaker of Parliament's ruling which declared the seats of four MPs vacant. The plaintiff argued that this ruling infringes upon the constitutional rights of the constituencies to representation and raises substantial constitutional questions requiring interpretation. The court recognized the urgency and potential for irreparable harm, granted the stay, and directed Parliament to allow the MPs to continue their duties pending the suit's determination.
TORKORNOO C.J.:
Mr. Abaidoo
We have an application Ex-Parte for Stay of Execution of the ruling of the Speaker of Parliament delivered on 17 October, 2024 pending the determination of this suit. We seek an order from this Court staying the ruling of the Rt. Honourable Speaker for ordering 4 members of Parliament namely:
1. Hon. Andrew Asiamah Amoako. Fomena Constituency, current 2nd Deputy Speaker of Parliament
2. Cynthia Morrison - Current Member of Parliament for Agona West
3. Hon. Kwadwo Asante, Member of Parliament for Suhum in Eastern Region
4. Peter Yaw Kwakye Ackah, Member of Parliament for Amanfi Central.
I move in terms of motion paper and supporting affidavit and exhibits. We refer to paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 of our affidavit in support.
In paragraph 4 - Speaker of Parliament was served through legal Department with the Writ and Application for Injunction.
By presumption of law, he knew of the pendency of this action.
In paragraph 5, - Speaker at sitting on 17h October, 2024 disclosed that he had been informed by the Plaintiff/ Applicant herein that he had been sued by the virtue of his office.
He was very much aware that the question of Interpretation of Article 97(1)(g) and (h) were the subject of a suit for interpretation before this Court.
By this acknowledgement, he was required by law to restrain himself from pronouncements made.
We've come ex-parte because of the urgency of this matter and upon the conjoint reading of Article 29(5), and Order 19 (3) (3) of C.I 47 of High Court
(Civil Procedure) Rules and where the subject of the application is likely to cause irreparable damage, a stay of execution must be granted.
We refer to paragraph & and the enumeration of 6 grounds.
a. Ex-parte because of the likely mischief being a halt to the business of Parliament especially committees chaired by the current majority members.
b) Likelihood of the current minority members doing everything in their power to halt business of government in these dying minutes of the period to 2024 elections.
c) A delay of Government appropriation which could require the approval of Parliament.
d) The ruling amounts to a denial of the Constitutional rights of these four constituencies to be lawfully represented in Parliament.
e) Exhibit B - the ruling on page 3 - " In doing so..."
Clearly, the Speaker of Parliament was usurping the Original and Exclusive Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court and he himself recognized it. By over understandin