The Supreme Court has provided a comprehensive breakdown of the reasons behind the decision to uphold the suit by Majority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin.
According to the Supreme Court, a Member of Parliament (MP) can only be considered to have vacated their seat if they change their political identity and remain in Parliament under the new identity.
In a judgment backing a suit brought by the Majority Leader, the court clarified that Articles 97(1)(g) and (h) of the Constitution are applicable only to the current term of Parliament. These provisions do not apply to future terms, such as when an MP contests elections under a different political affiliation.
More Read
The court emphasized that an MP’s seat is vacated if they switch parties within Parliament while continuing to serve as a member of the new party.
“It follows from the above therefore, that the only plausible conclusion which must necessarily flow from a holistic and contextual reading of Article 97(1)(g) and (h) is that an MP’s seat shall be vacated upon departure from the cohort of his elected party in Parliament to join another party in Parliament while seeking to remain in that Parliament as a member of the new party,” the court held.
In the same judgment, two of the Justices who dissented were of the view that an independent MP who joins a political party will have to vacate the seat originally held as an Independent Member.
The ruling further asserted that the constitutional provisions in question should be understood in the context of the current parliamentary term, and are not intended to cover future electoral aspirations or candidacies.
“Consequently, Article 97(1)(g) and (h) must be understood within their contextual framework, with no implicit or explicit indication that they pertain to future electoral aspirations or intentions that would materialize in subsequent terms, such as an MP contesting under a different ticket in the next election cycle,” the court held
source : CNR
