US-based Ghanaian legal practitioner Prof. Stephen Kwaku Asare, known popularly as Kwaku Azar, has weighed in on the Supreme Court’s decision to stay Speaker Alban’s ruling.
In a post shared via social media, he indicated that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to resolve disputes about vacating seats.
Adding that “Further, appellate review is left to the court of appeal, not the Supreme Court. The high court, with its specialized mandate, is better suited for such matters, while the Supreme Court’s role is reserved for broader constitutional issues. The Supreme Court has no role in these matters as the Court articulated in the Wulensi matter”.
He further indicated that “When the Supreme Court oversteps and takes on cases meant for the high court, it risks undermining the constitutional order and appearing to engage in political matters. Such overreach disrupts the balance of powers and weakens public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality. By adhering to Article 99, and allowing the high court to handle these issues, we protect both the integrity of the judicial system and the peace of the nation”.
Read His Position Below
Peace must rest on two principles articulated by GOGO in 2020. First, the question of vacating parliamentary seats is a legal matter, not a political one, and therefore must be resolved by the courts rather than by political actors. Second, the appropriate forum for addressing these issues is the high court, not the Supreme Court.
Peace in a democratic society is built on respect for the rule of law and the clear separation of powers. The two principles provide a clear framework for resolving questions about whether a parliamentary seat has become vacant, in a way that upholds justice and preserves social order. These principles are essential for ensuring peace that lasts, grounded in fairness and institutional integrity.
The first principle highlights that questions about vacating seats are inherently juridical, not political. This distinction prevents political actors from exploiting such matters for partisan gain or distorting the democratic process. In 2020, GOGO emphasized that these disputes must be resolved through established legal frameworks, ensuring impartiality and justice over political expediency. This approach strengthens trust in both the political system and democratic institutions. GOGO predicted that “if you leave it to politicians, it is going to become partisan because if you have a Speaker who is NPP inclined, he will use his power to vacate the seat of NDC members and vice versa.”
The second principle focuses on proper jurisdiction. The framers of the constitution, through Article 99, clearly designated the high court as the appropriate forum for resolving disputes about vacating seats. Further, appellate review is left to the court of appeal, not the Supreme Court. The high court, with its specialized mandate, is better suited for such matters, while the Supreme Court’s role is reserved for broader constitutional issues. The Supreme Court has no role in these matters as the Court articulated in the Wulensi matter.
When the Supreme Court oversteps and takes on cases meant for the high court, it risks undermining the constitutional order and appearing to engage in political matters. Such overreach disrupts the balance of powers and weakens public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality. By adhering to Article 99, and allowing the high court to handle these issues, we protect both the integrity of the judicial system and the peace of the nation.
Da Yie!
