A thorough explanation of the Supreme Court’s reasoning for upholding Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin’s lawsuit has been made public.
The Supreme Court holds that a Member of Parliament (MP) can only be deemed to have resigned from office if they continue to serve in Parliament while adopting a new political identity.
Articles 97(1)(g) and (h) of the Constitution are only applicable to the current term of Parliament, the court explained in a ruling supporting a complaint filed by the Majority Leader. When an MP runs for office again with a different political affiliation, for example, these clauses do not apply.
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.
Two of the Justices who dissented from the same ruling believed that an independent MP who joins a political party must give up the seat they previously held as an independent.
The Court further said that the constitutional provisions in question are not meant to cover future election aspirations or candidatures, but rather should be interpreted within the framework of the current parliamentary term.
“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: Citinewsroom