A retired Supreme Court Judge, Justice William Atuguba has described the reasoning of the 5 Supreme Court judges in the case of the vacant seat as merely political. According to him, but for political considerations, the judges would not have accepted jurisdiction for the case in the first place.
He explained that the Supreme Court should always take up cases in which it has original jurisdiction, not “referenced or concurrent jurisdiction.” On Tuesday, November 12, the Supreme Court by a 5-2 majority decision upheld the suit filed by Alexander Afenyo-Markin to the effect that Speaker Alban Bagbin misinterpreted Article 97 of the 1992 Constitution by declaring four seats vacant. The two dissenting justices thought the apex court did not have jurisdiction over this matter.
The suit filed by Afenyo-Markin brought a stalemate in Parliament as the NDC members assumed the Majority position based on the Speaker’s ruling. This prompted the New Patriotic Party Members of Parliament to boycott proceedings of the House.
Commenting on the Supreme Court’s ruling on Key Points on November 16, Justice Atuguba said the politicisation of the judiciary started some time ago, but it has reached its peak. “What is happening is mere politics. If we don’t arrest it, this vice will continue to fester and the constitution will be subverted,” he warned.
The retired judge further described the reasons adduced by the majority of the Supreme Court judges as “Superficial reasoning.”
Describing the judgement as predictable, Justice Atuguba said, “it was predictable. The same five judges accepted jurisdiction, so it was predictable. The political poisoning has gone to its peak. the constitutional virus must be cured. if it continues, we will have rule of politics instead of a rule of law.
He added that there is “massive constitutional deterioration” in the system and laid the blame at the doorstep of the mode of appointment of the Chief Justice. “The appointment of the Chief Justice by the President is the main problem. In fact, he nominates and appoints. How can you have independence of the judiciary when the head is yours,” he asked.
Touching on the issue of why the empanelled judges for this case were mostly the younger ones, Justice Atuguba said politics was the main consideration. “What reason will you use to justify empanelling younger judges over seasoned ones for such a landmark case, if not politics,” he asserted.
