Supreme Court should not have entertained Afenyo-Markin’s ex parte application – Mahama Ayariga

The National Democratic Congress (NDC) Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central, Mahama Ayariga says the Supreme Court’s directive on the Speaker of Parliament’s ruling that declared four seats vacant was surprising.

To him, it was a surprise especially when the constitution shields Parliament’s proceedings from judicial interference. 

In separate media interviews on Monday, October 21, 2024 after the National Democratic Congress (NDC) side on Sunday held a press conference on the Speaker’s last week ruling, Mr Ayariga pointed to Articles 115 and 122 of the constitution, which he said protects Parliament’s independence from intervention by the courts.

Mr Ayariga emphasised that the Supreme Court’s involvement in parliamentary matters, without directly engaging with the legislative body, was unexpected, given the constitutional guidelines. 

He stated, “it surprises us that the Supreme Court, which is supposed to be the body that understands the Constitution better than anybody, will see Article 115 and still go ahead and impeach our proceedings without even so much as, you know, listening to the side of the Speaker in Parliament.”

This ruling came after Alexander Afenyo-Markin, leader of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), caucus filed a suit for the interpretation of Article 97 of the constitution.

Mr Afenyo on Friday went ahead and filed an ex parte application and asked the Supreme Court to halt the ruling of the Speaker until the final determination of the matter.

The court after hearing arguments from Afenyo Markin’s lawyers directed that the Speaker’s ruling should be halted and should not be implemented until the final determination of the matter, meaning the said four MPs should be allowed to go ahead and work as MPs until the Supreme Court determines the matter.

However, Speaking to Citi FM on Monday morning, Mr Mahama Ayariga maintained that the National Democratic Congress (NDC) members will continue to follow the Speaker’s directive until further notice. 

He reiterated that Parliament, as an equal branch of government, follows instructions from the Speaker, not the judiciary, saying, “We listen to our Speaker, we don’t listen to the Supreme Court.”

He also questioned the urgency with which the Supreme Court acted, suggesting the issue should have been addressed initially by the High Court. 

“This is not a matter that even should have been entertained by the Supreme Court. This is a matter that should have started at the High Court because Article 99 is very clear on the subject that when it comes to a question of whether or not a seat is vacant, that is a matter that is reserved for the High Court,” Ayariga explained.

Ayariga outlined the usual procedure, where the High Court would seek the Supreme Court’s input if necessary. 

He stated, “If there is some misunderstanding, the High Court can then stay proceedings and refer it to the Supreme Court. Then the Supreme Court can give the High Court guidance as to how to go about the matter,” describing this as the constitutionally appropriate process.