Former Member of Parliament for Tamale Central constituency, Inusah Fuseini has expressed his concerns about the recent Supreme Court decision that stayed the ruling of the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin.
Speaking on Starr Today with Efua Tutuwaa Danso, Fuseini described the court’s decision as “hasty” and raised questions about the fairness of the process.
“This is a very important decision with far-reaching ramifications,” Fuseini stated. He pointed out that someone had filed an application with the Supreme Court to interpret Article 97-(1)(g) of the Constitution before the Speaker even made his ruling, which the court acted upon within just 24 hours. The lawyer questioned the urgency of the court’s response, and the nature of the application presented to it.
Fuseini emphasized that it was crucial for the Speaker and Parliament to be given the opportunity to explain their position before the Supreme Court acted. “It’s not only fair that the Speaker or Parliament be given the opportunity to explain why the court should not stay the hands of the Speaker,” he said, questioning why no notice was given to the Speaker before the interim measure was granted.
The Supreme Court’s decision, according to Fuseini, was based on the argument that the Speaker had failed to give four MPs a fair hearing. However, he pointed out the apparent contradiction in the court’s own actions, questioning how the court could fault the Speaker for not allowing a hearing while issuing its own decision without a hearing for the Speaker.
Fuseni also addressed the claim that the interpretation of Article 97-(1)(g) falls within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, as upheld by the majority. However, he argued that the Speaker was not interpreting the provision, but rather offering his understanding based on precedent, specifically referencing a previous ruling by former Speaker Mike Oquaye.
“At no point did the Speaker usurp the power of the Supreme Court to interpret Article 97-(1)(g),” Fuseini emphasized, noting that the Speaker, being a seasoned lawyer, was well aware of the boundaries of his authority.
In closing, Mr. Fuseini expressed disappointment in the Supreme Court’s decision to intervene at this stage, suggesting that it could fuel public perceptions of the court as being politically influenced. “It unnecessarily draws attention to the Supreme Court and confirms or validates people’s perception of the Supreme Court as an instrument of the ruling party,” he remarked.
According to the lawyer, the best way forward would have been for the Supreme Court to fully hear the case and provide clarity on the interpretation of the article, rather than issuing an interim stay on the Speaker’s ruling.
The case, which revolves around the application of Article 97-(1)(g), has sparked debate over the separation of powers between Parliament and the judiciary, with both institutions seemingly at odds over the next steps in resolving the dispute.
Source: starrfm.com.gh
