The Member of Parliament for South Dayi, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, has filed a writ at the Accra High Court over the four seats declared vacant.
He is demanding a “A declaration confirming the vacancy of the parliamentary seats of Mr. Andrew Amoako Asiamah, Hon. Member of Parliament for Fomena: Mrs Cynthia Mamle Morrison, Hon. Member of Parliament for Agona West; Mr. Kwadwo Asante, Hon. Member of Parliament for Suhum: and Mr. Peter Yaw Kwakye-Ackah, Hon. Member of Parliament for Amenfi Central by the ruling of the Defendant made on the 17th of October, 2024, on the floor of the 8th Parliament of the 4th republic.
“A declaration that the Independent Member of Parliament for the Fomena Constituency in the Ashanti Region, Hon. Andrew Amoako-Asiamah, has vacated his seat in Parliament by filing nomination forms with the Electoral Commission to contest the up-coming election on the ticket of the New Patriotic Party (NPP).
“A declaration that the NPP Member of Parliament for the Agona West Constituency in Central Region, Hon. Cynthia Mamle Morrison, has vacated her seat in Parliament by filing nomination forms with the Electoral Commission to contest the up-coming election as an Independent Candidate for the Agona West Constituency.”
According to Dafeamekpor, who is also a private legal practitioner, the October 17 ruling is valid because the Speaker’s move is backed by provisions of Article 97(1)(g) and (h) of the 1992 Constitution.
“An order should be directed at the Defendant to ensure that Mr Andrew Amoako Asiamah, Member of Parliament for Fomena; Mrs Cynthia Mamle Morrison, Member of Parliament for Agona West; Mr Kwadwo Asante, Member of Parliament for Sohum; and Mr Peter Yaw Kwakye-Ackah, Member of Parliament for Amenfi Central, no longer have access to the chamber of Parliament to participate in parliamentary proceedings,” portions of his writ contained.
His suit follows a declaration by the Speaker of Parliament based on Article 97, that, some four MPs who have switched camps in the next election no longer deserve to be in the current Parliament, saying they have vacated their seats.
On October 18, the Supreme Court issued a stay of execution on Speaker Bagbin’s ruling.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday, October 30, dismissed the application by the Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin to set aside its earlier ruling that stayed the execution of the Speaker’s declaration of four seats vacant.
During court proceedings, the apex court said the speaker’s application had no merit.
“We have considered the application, and we have come to the conclusion that the grounds supporting the application have no merit,” the Chief Justice stated.
“As the court pleases,” Bagbin’s lawyer, Thadeus Sory reacted.
It would be recalled that following an ex parte motion filed by Alexander Afenyo-Markin over the declaration of vacant seats by Bagbin, the apex court ordered for a stay of execution of the declaration.
In response, Bagbin filed an application at the apex court through his lawyer, Thaddeus Sory. The Speaker contends that the Supreme Court misapplied the law by putting on hold the execution of his ruling because it was a non-judicial decision.
The Speaker in his relief prayed the court to strike out its stay of execution of his ruling on the declaration of the four seats vacant, among others.
The Speaker is further seeking an order from the court to set aside the writ filed by the Leader of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) caucus, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, which sought to prevent the Speaker from making any ruling on the four seats.
According to the Speaker, the Supreme Court had powers to put on hold rulings of courts and not those of non-judicial bodies such as Parliament.
“In terms of orders staying of execution of rulings, the Supreme Court’s powers, under the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana and statute, to stay execution of rulings are limited to rulings of itself and of courts lower in the judicial hierarchy but do not extend to a ruling of the Speaker of Parliament who is not part of the judicial hierarchy,” the motion stated.
“With regard to the first defendant’s rulings in Parliament, a separate arm of Government, there fore, such rulings are not rulings within the judicial hierarchy so as to be the subject matter of ‘an application for stay of execution’ and a judicial order staying their execution,” it added.