The Supreme Court has clarified its decision to uphold the suit filed by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, bringing clarity to the controversy surrounding when a Member of Parliament (MP) is deemed to have vacated their seat.
In its detailed judgment, the Court ruled that an MP is considered to have vacated their seat only if they change their political affiliation during their current term while continuing to serve in Parliament under a new party identity.
The ruling, which aligns with the Majority Leader‘s position, interprets Articles 97(1)(g) and (h) of the Constitution as applying strictly to the ongoing parliamentary term. These provisions, the Court emphasized, do not extend to future terms, meaning an MP’s decision to contest elections under a different party in subsequent electoral cycles does not constitute grounds for vacating their seat.
The judgment further clarified that an MP must relinquish their seat if they switch parties during their tenure while still representing the new party in Parliament. The provisions are designed to address political alignment during the present term of service and do not regulate political choices made for future elections.
The full ruling is provided below.