The Dean of the UPSA Law School, Prof. Kofi Abotsi, has expressed concerns over the Supreme Court’s recent ruling against the Speaker of Parliament, highlighting the court’s failure to clearly define what constitutes the vacation of a parliamentary seat.
The court’s decision overturned Speaker Alban Bagbin’s declaration of vacancies for Members of Parliament (MPs) who intend to contest upcoming elections on the tickets of different parties.
While the court clarified what does not constitute the vacation of a seat, Prof. Abotsi argues that it did not provide a comprehensive definition of what does.
Speaking on JoyNews’ Newsfile, Prof. Abotsi explained, “The court spoke in negative terms, explaining what does not amount to vacating a seat, but failed to offer a positive statement detailing what exactly constitutes the vacation of a seat.”
He noted that this omission leaves room for ambiguity, especially since the Constitution refers to “leaving the party” as a factor in vacating a seat.
Prof. Abotsi emphasized that this gap in the ruling could lead to future disputes, as it lacks clear guidelines for determining whether an MP has vacated their seat by leaving their party.
He concluded, “I would have been happier to have seen a more positive statement outlining the circumstances that constitute vacation of seats, as I expect this matter to arise again.”