“I’m disappointed” – Supreme Court Judge who voted for Bagbin reveals
Justice Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu, one of the two dissenting judges in the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the vacant parliamentary seats case, has voiced concerns over the decision, suggesting that it could be overturned in the future. The court, by a 5-2 majority, ruled that the Speaker of Parliament’s declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacant was unconstitutional.
The case centered on the interpretation of Article 97 of the Constitution, specifically clauses 1(g) and 1(h), which outline the conditions under which a Member of Parliament loses their seat. The Speaker had declared the seats vacant after the MPs filed to contest parliamentary elections either as independent candidates or under a different political party.
The majority ruling, supported by Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo and Justices Mariama Owusu, Samuel Kwame Adibu-Aseidu, Ernest Yao Gaewu, and Yaw Darko Asare, sided with the argument presented by the Majority Leader, effectively overturning the Speaker’s decision.
Justice Amadu Tanko, however, raised serious legal and procedural concerns in his dissent. He expressed his strong disagreement with the majority’s interpretation of the Constitution, stating:
“I do not hasten to proclaim that I have apprehended with despair the majority’s conclusion in this suit, but I state, with utmost deference to the Hon. Chief Justice and the rest of my brethren in the majority, that not only do I fundamentally disagree with their conclusion, I, with all due respect, also find the decision an aberration to the established and accepted judicial position of this court which, with profound respect, I hope in no distant future the resultant usurpation of the constitutional prerogative of the High Court incidental to the majority decision will be reversed.”
Justice Amadu Tanko’s remarks highlight a deep division within the court and suggest that the decision could face further scrutiny in the future. His dissent has drawn attention to the broader implications of the ruling on constitutional interpretation and judicial precedent.
Source: GhanaWeb
