Private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu has noted that Supreme Court justices are appointed based on their affiliation to either the New Patriotic Party (NPP) or the National Democratic Congress (NDC). He described the apex court as a political organization.
Kpebu made this comment on TV3’s Key Point Saturday, November 2 while contributing to a discussion on the decision of the Supreme Court to refuse the application of Speaker of Parliament Alban Bgabin who was seeking to set aside the orders of the court in relation to the four seats declared vacant.
“On the matter of jurisdiction, we can’t fault them right now, we can fault the constitution, the constitution has given so much power to the president to appoint. This matter is a case between NPP and MDC shrouded under constitutional interpretation
The appointment of the Supreme Court justice not be examination…it is by affiliation, whether NPP or NDC, it is the same in short the supreme court is a political organization, NDC and NPP choose their friends to Supreme Court.”
The Speaker, Alban Bagbin was seeking to nullify the Supreme Court’s decision to stay his ruling on the four seats.
The Speaker also sought to set aside a writ filed by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, which had requested judicial intervention to prevent the Speaker from issuing further declarations on the disputed seats.
His lawyer Thaddeus Sory, Bagbin argued that the court had overreached by suspending his ruling, which he insisted was a parliamentary decision outside the judicial remit. His motion asserted that, as the Speaker’s actions were non-judicial, they should not be subject to stays of execution, a mechanism typically applied to court rulings.
“In terms of orders staying execution of rulings, the Supreme Court’s powers, under the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana and statute, to stay execution of rulings are limited to rulings of itself and of courts lower in the judicial hierarchy but do not extend to a ruling of the Speaker of Parliament who is not part of the judicial hierarchy.”
But in her ruling, the Chief Justice explained, “Given the irreparable harm that could be caused to the constituencies—comprising hundreds of thousands of Ghanaians—who would be left without MPs and without the possibility of by-elections, as well as the irreversible impact on MPs potentially losing their seats just weeks before the December 7 election, it is necessary for this court to address this dispute promptly rather than issuing a 10-day interim order on Article 97(1)(g) as interpreted by the Speaker.
She added that it is vital for the Supreme Court to expedite proceedings, bridging the standard 14-day period, by allowing the constitutional action to proceed through a statement of case, requiring parties to submit their claims within seven days, and moving quickly to resolve the issues presented.
According to the Chief Justice had all parties complied with these directives within the suggested timeline, the case could have been resolved within the 10 days the applicant requested.