3 News

Thu 31st Oct, 2024 13:04

Although the speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin is entitled to disagree with rulings and judgments of the Supreme Court, he is bound to obey the rulings, Businessman and political analyst, Senyo Hosi has said.

Senyo Hosi argues that the mere existence of a flaw in the court’s decision does not necessarily mean it should be disobeyed, any more than the mere existence of a bad character trait in a child means he should be abandoned.

He has therefore told the Speaker of Parliament to respect the Supreme Court ruling that dismissed his application to set aside an earlier order by the apex court that stayed the speaker’s ruling in declaring four seats vacant.

The Supreme Court refused the application of the Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin to set aside the earlier ruling of the apex court staying the execution of the orders of the speaker to declare four seats vacant.

During court proceedings on Wednesday, October 30, the court said the speaker’s application had no merit.

“As the court pleases,” Bagbin’s lawyer, Thadeus Sory reacted.

“But that may be High Crime. One that must be punished irrespective of whose ox is gored. While the hawks would applaud the no-nonsense ‘kinkong’ Bagbin persona on the sidelines, it would ring uncertainty, or even doom, for our democratic governance. Our Constitution has granted hegemony of adjudicative powers in our courts, and installed the Supreme Court as the final arbiter in that enterprise.

“Your disrespect of the court’s decision will set a dangerous precedent and disturb the harmony in our governance institutions. Can you imagine the anarchy of having the various arms of government opt to disregard the orders of the Supreme Court?”

Below is his full letter to the speaker…

Rest the hawk, save our democracy

Dear Mr. Speaker, a while ago, I published an open letter to the Chief Justice of our Republic, Her Ladyship Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo.

The sentiments contained in that letter came from puritanical intentions and aligned, I believe, with pervasive public perceptions of our apex court.

The disillusionment of many in the failure of our democracy to deliver the promises of our 1992 Constitution paints more a fragile democracy. Please let’s not take our progress for granted.

Mr. Speaker, following the dismissal of your motion to have the Supreme Court vacate its orders in the Afenyo Markin vs. The Speaker case, there are many expecting that you will ignore the apex court and proceed in an assertive fashion. Well, you may do that, perhaps with limited consequences for your person as the rest of us would have faced if we disobeyed the Supreme Court.

Your disrespect of the court’s decision will set a dangerous precedent and disturb the harmony in our governance institutions. Can you imagine the anarchy of having the various arms of government opt to disregard the orders of the Supreme Court?

May be the citizenry and security agencies will follow suit and there goes our statehood. The constitution envisages the occurrence of conflicts in the everyday dealings of the citizenry as well as the dealings of our governance structures. For the sustenance of governance and the progress of the State, conflicts cannot be allowed to continue in perpetuity and for which reason, the Supreme Court in Article 129 is charged with bringing finality to conflicts, including conflicts with itself.

‘We-the-people’ through the constitution, empowered it with counter majoritarian powers. We did this in full
knowledge that it may hurt intertemporally but sure provides structural stability for the advancement of the State.

Respectfully, Mr. Speaker. Like all of us, you are entitled to disagree with rulings and judgments of the court when they are perverse, or even threaten the ideals of our Constitution. The mere existence of a flaw in the court’s decision does not necessarily mean it should be disobeyed, any more than the mere existence of a bad character trait in a child means he should be abandoned.

It is true that the indeterminacy and manipulability of law means a court’s decision can sometimes be atrocious, offensive and a desecration of justice. But disobedience resets our governance systems to a primordial anarchic state. Judges themselves accept that they can be wrong. It was a former Nigerian Chief Justice, Chukwudifu Oputa, who said that the law is what the Supreme Court says it is even when it is wrong.

In other words, a court’s decision may be subject to decisive objections, like this current one, but until reversed, or steps are taken to change it, must be obeyed, nonetheless.

Mr. Speaker, while the hawkish voices may be loud, cacophonous and tempting, I strongly urge you not to fall into the trap of counter-productive inter-organ collision which now threatens the efficiency of our state.

I urge you to put country first and save our democracy from the excessive partisan polarization we face today.

If you can do this, your place in our history as an extraordinary statesman is assured.

From the caves of Klefe-Demete, my humble village, I remain,

Senyo Hosi

The post Flaw in court’s decision doesn’t mean it should be disobeyed – Senyo Hosi tells Speaker first appeared on 3News.