Pink 96.9 fm your life, your music
Related Articles
The Supreme Court has explained its rationale for ruling in favor of a suit brought by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, challenging Speaker Alban Bagbin’s declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacant.
In its judgment, the court clarified that a Member of Parliament (MP) can only be deemed to have vacated their seat if they switch political affiliation and continue to serve in Parliament under the new party. The provisions outlined in Articles 97(1)(g) and (h) of the Constitution, the court emphasized, apply solely to the current parliamentary term and not to future terms or re-election scenarios.
“It follows from the above, therefore, that the only plausible conclusion from a holistic reading of Article 97(1)(g) and (h) is that an MP’s seat shall be vacated upon departure from their 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 ruled.
Dissenting justices argued that an independent MP joining a political party would need to vacate their original seat. However, the majority view maintained that these provisions do not extend to MPs contesting future elections under a different political affiliation, as they are limited to the term during which the switch occurs.
Story By: Baffour/Pinkfmonlinegh.com
