Gertrude Araba Essaba Torkornoo, Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana.
• Sory Mocks Supreme Court’s ‘Spent’ Order
• Judge Tanko Labels Ruling an ‘Aberration,’ Calls for Reversal
In a fiery courtroom clash that has spilt into the public domain, the battle over vacant parliamentary seats has taken an unexpected twist, with sharp rebukes from both legal heavyweights and dissenting judges. At the centre of the storm is a contentious 109-page Supreme Court ruling, now under siege from critics who see it as a judicial overreach.
Thaddeus Sory Fires from the Hip.
Thaddeus Sory, representing Speaker Alban Bagbin in the explosive Afenyo-Markin suit, didn’t mince words in a scathing Facebook post. Branding the Court’s 5-2 majority ruling as “interesting,” Sory dismissed the judgment as a legal misfire that danced around the real issues. He argued the ruling lacked teeth, failing to issue a specific order against the Speaker under Article 2, Clause 2 of the 1992 Constitution.
In his assessment, the Court’s decision missed the mark, with Sory claiming it leaned on outdated facts and ignored key developments in the case. “The Plaintiff sought reliefs that simply didn’t apply to the facts,” he fumed. Dismissing the ex parte orders as “magical,” Sory accused the bench of skirting proper judicial procedures.
“Mr Plaintiff, TANTALUS on my mind,” Sory quipped, invoking the Greek mythological figure condemned to eternal frustration—a jab at what he sees as Afenyo-Markin’s futile quest to restrain the Speaker’s authority.
Justice Tanko Breaks Ranks
Adding fuel to the fire, Supreme Court Justice Imoro Tanko delivered a blistering dissent, lambasting the majority decision as an “aberration.” In a sharply worded judgment, Tanko accused his colleagues of usurping the constitutional role of the High Court, arguing that the Supreme Court overstepped its jurisdiction in ruling on parliamentary vacancies.
“The decision is a profound departure from judicial precedent,” Tanko wrote, imploring the Court to reverse what he sees as a dangerous precedent undermining constitutional checks and balances.
Justice Tanko pointed to Article 99 of the Constitution, which grants the High Court exclusive authority to determine whether a parliamentary seat is vacant. While acknowledging the Supreme Court’s broad powers under Article 130, he emphasised that specific provisions must prevail over general rules.
“Generalia specialibus non-derogant,” Tanko declared, invoking the principle that special laws override general ones. He argued that by entertaining the suit, the Supreme Court had breached this fundamental legal doctrine, effectively seizing
the High Court’s role.
A Judgment Divided
The majority, led by Justice Darko Asare, upheld the unconstitutionality of the Speaker’s decision to declare seats vacant based on MPs’ political affiliations. However, critics note the judgment stopped short of explicitly nullifying the Speaker’s actions, leaving Parliament’s next steps shrouded in uncertainty.
Justice Tanko’s dissent, which cited landmark rulings such as the Wulensi Constituency Case, was a clarion call to respect constitutional boundaries. He warned that the Court’s approach risked dismantling Parliament’s independence and compromising the judiciary’s integrity.
Parliament at a Crossroads
The fallout from this legal tug-of-war has cast a shadow over Parliament’s return. While the ruling technically lifts the Speaker’s declaration of vacant seats, murmurs from the NDC caucus suggest they may boycott proceedings, further complicating the legislative process.
With tensions escalating and constitutional experts weighing in, this courtroom drama is far from over. Thaddeus Sory’s defiance and Justice Tanko’s powerful dissent have set the stage for a potential legal and political showdown that could reshape the dynamics between the country’s judiciary and its legislature.
Stay tuned as this gripping saga unfolds, with Parliament and the courts poised for a reckoning that could redefine Ghana’s democratic architecture.
About The Author
