Private legal practitioner, Martin Luther Kpebu, has said the matter of jurisdiction as ruled by the Supreme Court in the vacant seats controversy “is not a straitjacket. It’s fluid, it’s subject to everybody’s interpretation.”
Martin Kpebu says he disagrees with the apex court’s decision that it has jurisdiction over the matter triggered by the leader of the NPP caucus in Parliament, Alexander Kwamena Afenyo-Markin.
According to Kpebu, there are different schools of thought which give people the right to agree to the idea that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction or otherwise over the matter.
Speaking on the KeyPoints on TV3 Saturday, November 16, 2024, he said “the fact that they say they have jurisdiction; I don’t believe so. I struggle to agree with the Supreme Court that there is jurisdiction. I agree that because we belong to different schools of thought, they have the right to disagree and they can hold a different opinion.”
The matter involving the vacant seats controversy is something many legal luminaries have said does not lie in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. When a similar incident was brought before the court in 2021 after the residents of Santrokofi, Akpafu, Lolobi and Likpe (SALL) were denied representation in Parliament, the Supreme Court at the time said it lacked jurisdiction on the matter, saying it is the High Court that handles such issues.
However, many have expressed shock over the turn of events when a similar matter was presented to the court after some four seats were declared vacant in Parliament, where the apex court ruled to stay the ruling made by the Speaker.
Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, the Speaker, in his application over the matter challenged the jurisdiction of the court on the issue where it eventually ruled in a 5:2 majority that it has jurisdiction.
According to Kpebu, the controversy over the lack of jurisdiction or otherwise will always favour the party in power as long as the judges are appointed by the President of the day.
He says whoever is President will always appoint people who share in their ideologies and would always rule in their favour is such instances, the reason the mode of appointment of judges needs to be changed.
“The real understanding of what’s going on is to look at how they are appointed. This is the very reason for which they are appointed. The President looks at the various judges and he will choose those who think like him. Those who support is view point. Those who reason like him. Then we say the same philosophies, the same jurisprudential viewpoint, the same ideologies.
“That’s what they do so he is choosing people who reflect his thought so don’t be surprised decisions like these go in favour of the ruling government. It’s not only NPP that does it. NDC too, when you’re in office, you choose your friends to go to the Supreme Court,” he remarked.
Supreme Court’s judgement on vacant seats will not stand the test of time – Amaliba
