Parliamentary Seat Saga Supreme Court Overstepped Its Boundaries Tony Aidoo

Former Senior Presidential Aide, Dr. Tony Aidoo, has expressed strong concerns regarding the Supreme Court’s handling of the recent case involving the declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacant.

Speaking on Joy News October 22, he described the Court’s actions as a “procedural error” and criticised what he called a dangerous precedent in Ghana’s democracy.

The Supreme Court, on October 18, issued a stay of execution on Speaker Alban Bagbin’s ruling, which had declared the four seats vacant.

This ruling was the result of an ex parte application filed by some NPP MPs, and the Court’s decision allows the MPs in question to persist their parliamentary duties until a final ruling is given.

Dr Aidoo believes the Court overstepped its boundaries in entertaining the application without including the Speaker or Parliament.

“The Supreme Court committed a procedural error by not hearing from Parliament or the Speaker. This is an illegality, and the matter should be struck out,” he stated.

He emphasised the role of the judiciary as a guardian of the Constitution rather than a tool for any political regime.

Dr Aidoo argued that the Supreme Court must stay loyal to the Constitution, cautioning against rulings that appear politically motivated.

“How can the Supreme Court turn itself into a political arena? It is the last bastion of defence for the Constitution and must realise thathellip; It shouldn’t put itself as a hatchet agent. The law must be predictable, or there is no law.”

Dr Aidoo also questioned the Attorney General’s rationale in challenging the Speaker’s ruling, pointing out the inconsistency between the AG’s stance in this case and the ongoing prosecution of James Gyakye Quayson for contesting an election while holding dual citizenship.

“If the AG claims that filing nominations for a future election doesn’t vacate a current seat, why is Gyakye Quayson being prosecuted for filing nominations?”

Dr. Aidoo warned that Ghana’s Fourth Republic risks descending into political chaos if judicial decisions are perceived as inconsistent and influenced by partisan interests.