Samuel Atta-Akyea, Member of Parliament for Abuakwa South, has strongly refuted allegations suggesting that Ghana’s Supreme Court functions as an extension of the Jubilee House, dismissing these assertions as baseless and stemming from a lack of understanding of the judiciary’s role.
Speaking on The Big Issue program on Channel One TV with Selorm Adonoo, Atta-Akyea emphasized that the critics making such claims undermine the integrity of the Supreme Court and the principles of the rule of law.
Atta-Akyea defended the Supreme Court’s impartiality and credibility, describing its members as highly qualified legal professionals dedicated to justice. He stated, “Those who say that the Supreme Court is an extension of the Jubilee House and they will rubber-stamp what we want… Two judges, Justice Lovelace Johnson and Justice Amadu Tanko, are showing that they can think differently. The Supreme Court is a forum of good people. And we shouldn’t say that the Supreme Court is an extension of the executive. Those who believe in this position do not understand the rule of law. And it’s very subversive of the constitution to be going that route.”
Atta-Akyea’s remarks came in response to criticisms following the Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn Speaker Alban Bagbin’s declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacant. On November 12, the Court ruled in favor of a challenge brought by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, who contested the Speaker’s decision.
The legal dispute stemmed from Speaker Bagbin’s earlier declaration that the seats held by certain Members of Parliament were vacant. However, the Supreme Court, in its ruling on the matter, emphasized that a parliamentary seat can only be deemed vacant if a legislator officially switches political parties while retaining their position in Parliament.
In a detailed judgment delivered on November 14, five justices supported the Majority Leader’s position, affirming that the Speaker’s declaration was inconsistent with constitutional provisions. According to the ruling, the decision to vacate a seat requires adherence to specific legal processes, which had not been met in this instance.
The decision sparked a heated debate, with some critics accusing the Supreme Court of acting in favor of the executive branch. These allegations have been met with strong opposition from legal experts and political figures like Atta-Akyea, who argue that such claims are damaging to the judiciary’s reputation and undermine public trust in Ghana’s democratic institutions.
Atta-Akyea highlighted the importance of respecting the judiciary’s independence and avoiding unfounded accusations. He noted that the dissenting opinions of two justices, Justice Lovelace Johnson and Justice Amadu Tanko, demonstrate the Court’s capacity for diverse interpretations and independent thinking. Their dissent was based on the argument that the Supreme Court lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter, reflecting a divergence in views on the Court’s authority in such cases.
The ruling underscores a broader debate about the relationship between the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature in Ghana’s democratic framework. While some view the Court’s decision as a necessary check on the powers of the Speaker of Parliament, others see it as an overreach that undermines parliamentary independence.
Atta-Akyea urged Ghanaians to approach such discussions with a clear understanding of the rule of law and constitutional principles. He warned against narratives that portray the judiciary as compromised, stressing that such rhetoric has the potential to erode the public’s confidence in Ghana’s legal system.
“Those who believe that the Supreme Court is in cahoots with the executive do not understand the rule of law,” Atta-Akyea reiterated. “It is dangerous and subversive to suggest that the judiciary is not independent. The constitution guarantees the separation of powers, and we must respect that.”
The controversy also highlights the complexity of constitutional interpretation in a rapidly evolving political landscape. Legal scholars have noted that the case raises important questions about the balance of power between the Speaker of Parliament and the judiciary, particularly in matters involving the tenure of Members of Parliament.
Despite the criticisms, the Supreme Court’s decision has reaffirmed its role as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional disputes. By ruling in favor of the Majority Leader, the Court has clarified the legal framework for determining when a parliamentary seat can be declared vacant, setting a precedent for future cases.
As the political discourse continues, Atta-Akyea’s defense of the Supreme Court serves as a reminder of the need to uphold the judiciary’s independence and avoid politicizing its decisions. He called on Ghanaians to engage in constructive dialogue and respect the institutions that form the backbone of the country’s democracy.
In conclusion, Samuel Atta-Akyea has rejected accusations that Ghana’s Supreme Court operates under the influence of the executive branch, labeling such claims as uninformed and detrimental to the rule of law. By defending the Court’s impartiality and professionalism, he has reinforced the importance of maintaining public trust in the judiciary. The recent ruling on the vacant parliamentary seats may have sparked controversy, but it also highlights the critical role of the judiciary in upholding constitutional principles and ensuring the proper functioning of Ghana’s democracy.
