Madina MP Xavier Sosu questions Supreme Court ruling on Afenyo-Markin vs Bagbin case

Legal practitioner and Member of Parliament for Madina, Francis Xavier Sosu, has expressed concerns regarding the Supreme Court’s decision in the Afenyo-Markin vs Bagbin case.

On Tuesday, 12 November 2024, the apex court ruled against Speaker Alban Bagbin in his contentious decision to declare the seats of Agona West, Suhum, Amenfi Central, and Fomena vacant. A majority of five justices from the seven-member panel concluded that the Speaker’s declaration did not represent “a true and proper interpretation of Articles 97(1)(g) and (h) of the 1992 Constitution.” However, the two dissenting justices dismissed the case, asserting that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to address the matter.

Reacting to the ruling in a Facebook post on Thursday, 14 November 2024, the Madina MP questioned, “How does an MP change political identity and seek to remain in Parliament under the new identity?” He further asked, “How about an MP who has changed his political identity, and has demonstrated that change by officially filing nomination with EC to contest elections based on this new political identity? So, what is the purpose at the core of Article 97(1)(g) and (h)?”

Sosu emphasised that “constitutional interpretation must be done to give effect to the purpose at the core of the provision.”

He argued that the Supreme Court failed to uncover “the overriding purpose of the framers of the Constitution in Article 97(1)(g) and (h).” He added, “If you can’t discover the purpose, how can you interpret to effect to same? What mischief was the provision made to cure?”

Below are details of his full post:

How does an MP change political identity and seek to remain in Parliament under the new identity?

How about an MP who has changed his political identity, and has demonstrated that change by officially filing nomination with EC to contest elections based on this new political identity?

So what is the purpose at the core of Article 97(1)(g) and (h)?

Constitutional interpretation must be done to give effect to the purpose at the core of the provision. I didn’t see the SC unravelling the overriding purpose of the framers of the Constitution in Article 97(1)(g) and (h).

If you can’t discover the purpose, how can you interpret to effect to same? What mischief was the provision made to cure?

Sosu also aligned himself with the views of Justice Tanko Amadu, JSC, who dissented in the case. He quoted the justice’s statement:

“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 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.”

Justice Tanko Amadu’s remarks were delivered as part of his dissenting opinion in Afenyo-Markin v. Speaker of Parliament & AG, 12 November 2024.

Read Full Story