In an interview with Citi TV on Tuesday, November 12, 2024, he said that he was pleased with the outcome of the case.
“I think, I have been in court for too long. I accept decisions as they came. If they had ruled against us, I would have accepted it. I have to realise that in this matter of law, you must accept decisions as they come,” he stated.
Reflecting on his experience during the case, he noted that the actions of some judges in court can sometimes be misleading, but ultimately, the judge’s ruling is what matters.
“You go to court and a judge is questioning you, you may think that that judge doesn’t like you. You will be surprised that, that judge may rule in your favour, maybe he needed clarification.
“Some of the judges will also heckle you and then they’ll go the way you expected them to go”, he stated.
Joe Ghartey described the legal dispute as ‘unnecessary’ and stressed the need for a peaceful atmosphere as the country prepares for the pending elections.
“What motivates me, is the country, Ghana. It is one country that we have. NPP, NDC, you, me our passports, and Ghana Card, and so, we need an oasis of peace. I am glad that this is behind us. I pray that this election is peaceful. Whoever wins, God bless the person, whoever loses, God bless the person. We work together to make Ghana better,” he stated.
The Supreme Court’s verdict follows a suit filed by Alexander Kwamina Afenyo-Markin, the leader of the New Patriotic Party caucus, challenging Speaker Bagbin’s ruling.
The court, led by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo and comprising seven justices, ruled in favour of Afenyo-Markin, accepting all his arguments in a 5-2 majority decision.
Per the Supreme Court’s ruling, the New Patriotic Party (NPP) reclaimed its position as the Majority in Parliament.
The controversy over the vacant seats began when Speaker Alban Bagbin, following a petition from Haruna Iddrisu, the Member of Parliament for Tamale South, declared four seats—namely Agona West, Fomena, Suhum, and Amenfi Central—vacant.
The decision was based on the fact that representatives from these constituencies had either crossed the floor to contest the 2024 parliamentary elections as independents or had joined a different party from the one they represented upon entering the 8th Parliament.
The Speaker’s ruling was a formal response to the House in relation to a matter of significant parliamentary and constitutional importance, which was brought to the attention of the House on Tuesday, October 15, by Dr Cassiel Ato Forson, the Minority Leader and NDC MP for Ajumako-Enyan-Essiam, pursuant to Order 93 of the Standing Orders of Parliament.
According to the Speaker, the four MPs had breached Article 9(1)(g) and (h) of the 1992 Constitution, which states that “A member of Parliament shall vacate his seat in Parliament — (g) if he leaves the party of which he was a member at the time of his election to Parliament to join another party or seeks to remain in Parliament as an independent member; or (h) if he was elected a member of Parliament as an independent candidate and joins a political party.”
The Supreme Court, however, contends that Speaker Bagbin’s interpretation of the Constitution was wrong.
The Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo, expressed concern over the potential disenfranchisement of constituents who might lose their parliamentary representation without the option of by-elections, especially with the pending general elections.
The Chief Justice directed both parties to submit their statements of claim within seven days to ensure a swift resolution.
