Dissenting Justices assert High Court’s role in declaring seat vacancies – Atta Akyea

The Member of Parliament for Abuakwa South, Samuel Atta Akyea, has highlighted dissenting opinions from two Supreme Court justices in the recent ruling on parliamentary seat vacancies, asserting that they reinforce the position that the Speaker of Parliament lacks the authority to declare seats vacant.

Speaking on The Big Issue on Channel One TV, Mr. Atta Akyea cited the written opinions of Justices Amadu Tanko and Lovelace-Johnson, who argued that the power to declare parliamentary seats vacant resides exclusively with the High Court.

“Even on the authority of what Justice Amadu Tanko wrote, and what Justice Lovelace-Johnson wrote, they said it is the High Court that has the power to do so. The speaker on every permutation was totally wrong.

“The dissenting view that you are holding on to numb the attitudes of the speaker. They are telling you that it is not the speaker who has that power to declare the vacancy, but rather the high court,” he stated.

What Justices Amadu Tanko and Lovelace-Johnson said about the final ruling on the vacant seats

Justice Lovelace-Johnson, one of the dissenting judges, argued that the High Court, rather than the Supreme Court, has exclusive jurisdiction in matters related to the vacation of parliamentary seats.

“It is my opinion that about a matter relating to the vacation or otherwise of a parliamentary seat, a plaintiff has no choice in the matter. He has to go to the High Court. The jurisdiction of the High Court is exclusive.

“I am satisfied that the high court is the proper forum for this matter but the plaintiff having his writ in the Supreme Court, the jurisdiction of this court has not been properly invoked. I, therefore, see no need to go into the merits or otherwise of the other issues raised in the memoranda of issues. The action is accordingly dismissed,” she stated.

Justice Tanko Amadu, in his dissent, also expressed strong reservations, calling the majority’s decision an “aberration” to established judicial practices.

“I do not hasten to proclaim that I have apprehended with despair the majority’s conclusion in this suit, but I state, with utmost deference to the Hon. Chief Justice and the rest of my brethren in the majority that, not only do I fundamentally disagree with their conclusion, I, with all due respect, also find the decision an aberration to the established and accepted a judicial position of this court which with profound respect.

“I hope in no distant future the resultant usurpation of the constitutional prerogative of the High Court incidental to the majority decision will be reversed,” the court held