Analysing the ruling of the Supreme Court on the current brouhaha in Parliament, Critics are asking, has the Supreme Court not rendered Article 97 of the 1992 Constitution useless? I believe the Court just interpreted it in ways that have influenced its application and the political landscape in Ghana.
OVERVIEW OF ARTICLE 97
Article 97 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana outlines the grounds for the removal of Members of Parliament (MPs) from office. Specifically, it states that an MP can be removed from office if they:
Are convicted of a crime involving dishonesty
Are declared bankrupt.
Are unable to perform the functions of their office due to physical or mental incapacity.
Engage in conduct that is inconsistent with the office of a Member of Parliament.
SUPREME COURT INTERPRETATIONS:
The Supreme Court’s interpretations of Article 97 have been significant in shaping its application. Some key points include:
Judicial Review:
The Supreme Court has asserted its role in reviewing actions taken by Parliament and other state institutions, including the processes for the removal of MPs. This has sometimes led to debates about the limits of parliamentary privilege and the judiciary’s role in political matters.
Political Context:
The application of Article 97 has often been influenced by the political context in which it is invoked. For example, cases involving the removal of MPs have sometimes been contentious and politically charged, leading to legal battles that reflect broader political disputes.
Case Law:
Specific cases brought before the Supreme Court have tested the boundaries of Article 97. For instance, the Court has ruled on issues related to the interpretation of “conduct inconsistent with the office” and the procedural requirements for removing an MP.
WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS?
While the Supreme Court’s rulings have clarified certain aspects of Article 97, they have also led to discussions about the effectiveness and relevance of the provisions in the current political climate. Critics may argue that certain interpretations have made it more challenging to hold MPs accountable, while supporters may contend that the Court is upholding constitutional protections.
Will the speaker comply with the ruling of the Supreme Court? We have people calling out the speaker to challenge the Supreme Court’s ruling. Private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu has called on the speaker to challenge this decision. Lawyer Martin Kpebu argued that if the speaker were to push back on the court’s decision, it could serve as a powerful statement for the independence of parliament and strengthen democratic governance.
CONCLUSION:
In summary, while the Supreme Court of Ghana has not made Article 97 useless, its interpretations and rulings have significantly impacted how the article is applied in practice. The on-going dialogue between the judiciary and the legislature regarding the accountability of MPs continues to evolve, reflecting the dynamic nature of Ghana’s constitutional democracy. For the most current developments or current case, let’s see how it unfolds.
Will the speaker comply with the ruling of the seven member Panel or will challenge the ruling of the Supreme Court?
Source: 3News.com
DISCLAIMER: Independentghana.com will not be liable for any inaccuracies contained in this article. The views expressed in the article are solely those of the author’s, and do not reflect those of The Independent Ghana