Private legal practitioner Richard Adongo is questioning the practicality of the Supreme Court’s directive to Parliament. It should be recalled that the Supreme Court recently stayed the ruling by the Speaker of Parliament, which declared four seats in Parliament vacant.
Speaking on A1 Radio, Mr. Adongo emphasized that public institutions, particularly Parliament, which also serves as a constitutional body, should not be hindered in carrying out their functions.
“A public institution should not ordinarily be injuncted or prevented from executing its functions and responsibilities to the general public. Parliament is not only a public institution, it is a constitutional institution,” he said.
He raised concerns about whether Parliament would comply with the directive and how such compliance would be enforced.
“Assuming Parliament fails to comply with the Supreme Court, will the Supreme Court cite all the offending MPs for contempt of court, including the Speaker?” he asked.
Mr. Adongo also noted that the Supreme Court’s ruling indicated that the MPs were not given an opportunity to present their case before decisions were made, highlighting a critical issue regarding the fairness of the process. The legal ramifications of these developments remain to be seen, particularly concerning the roles of both the Supreme Court and Parliament in navigating this unprecedented scenario.
“The ruling of the Supreme Court states that the MPs were not given a hearing before the decision was taken. If that is true, were the NDC MPs given a hearing on their application before then? These are the various issues on which I disagree with them,” he said.
Source: A1Radioonline.Com | 101.1MHZ | Gifty Eyram Kudiabor | Bolgatanga
