Supreme-Court-Panel

The Lawyers in Search of Democracy (LINSOD) has raised concerns regarding the Supreme Court’s recent rulings on political cases, urging the court to consider their feedback as critical to judicial integrity.

According to a statement signed by LINSOD President Eric Delanyo Alifo, the group emphasized respect for the judiciary but expressed reservations about the Court’s approach in cases involving the Legislature, noting perceived inconsistencies in rulings, particularly when political implications arise.

LINSOD pointed to instances where the Supreme Court allegedly overlooked parliamentary procedures and ignored previous precedents, creating, they argue, an imbalance in judicial outcomes that could favor one political party.

The group also cited the Mo Ibrahim Index’s report of a significant drop in Ghana’s judicial independence. It criticized the Attorney General’s stance on disciplining lawyers for dissenting views, suggesting it could stifle constructive feedback on justice delivery.

Read the release below…

WE RESPECT THE SUPREME COURT, BUT WE HAVE GENUINE CONCERNS AND THE COURT MUST HEAR US

1. As lawyers, we are not oblivious of our duty to respect and preserve the sanctity of the courts, and particularly the Supreme Court. We have jealously tried to do so even under recent worrying and unusual circumstances in the application of the law, and departure from some well-settled legal principles by the Supreme Court in typically, political matters. We have very serious concerns with the courts, especially, with the Supreme Court, about how they adjudicate and determine the political matters that come before them. We would humbly implore the Court to hear us and consider our grievances as important feedback on their administration of justice, especially in the political matters that come before them for determination.

2. When in the ongoing impasse between the Judiciary (the Supreme Court) and the Legislature (the Speaker, in this case), the Court has ignored or overlooked the fact that just as the courts have their rules of procedure, the Legislature equally has its own Standing Orders pursuant to Article 110(1), which provides that “subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may, by standing orders, regulate its own procedure;” and that Order 18 of Parliament’s Standing Orders states as: “The seat of a Member shall be declared vacant by Mr. Speaker under clause 1(b) to (h) of Article 97 of the Constitution,” we would have a concern.

3. When in the impasse, the Court has completely overlooked the fact that in the performance of their duties, all the arms of government, including the Executive, the Judiciary (at all levels), and the Legislature are constantly implementing the provisions of the 1992 Constitution on daily basis, and that in a way means these arms of government are interpreting those provisions at each point in the performance of their
functions, we would have

4. When the Court supported the attempt by Hon. Alexander Afenyo- Markin to stop the Speaker of Parliament from performing his duty under Order 18 of the Standing Orders of Parliament, we have a genuine concern.

5. Similarly, when after the Speaker had performed his function under Order 18 of the Standing Orders of Parliament, the Court hurriedly entertained Hon. Alexander Afenyo-Markin’s one-sided (ex parte) application and ordered for a stay of the Speaker’s communication to the Members of Parliament even beyond the time limit requested by Mr. Afenyo-Markin himself, we should have a genuine concern.

6. When the Court failed to acknowledge, as widely accepted by all objectively-minded persons (except for partisan NPP caucus in Parliament), that the provisions in Article 97(1)(g) & (h) are very simple and straightforward and do not require any sophisticated interpretation by a court, we have a genuine concern.

7. When the Court failed to take important notice of the fact that after the Speaker’s communication of the vacancy of the four seats as vacant, none of the affected Members of Parliament had complained, and nobody from any of their constituencies had complained, but the only one who had complained was the leader of the NPP caucus in Parliament, who was aggrieved because the effect of the Speaker’s communication was that the NPP Majority Caucus obviously became the minority, and the essence of the plaintiff’s action was for the Supreme Court to help him to restore his self-serving title through his caucus as the Majority Leader in Parliament, we would of course have a concern.

8. When the Court failed to acknowledge a precedent, as recent as 2020, which was instigated by the NPP caucus in Parliament, and in whose favour the then Speaker had ruled, and of which they had enjoyed the fruits, but have suddenly turned to the Court now to overturn that precedent, in order for them to be victorious again in the opposite situation, and the Court failed to resist the greed and double-standard attitude of the plaintiff, we have a genuine concern.

9. When the Court overlooked the emphatic constitutional provision in
Article 99 of the 1992 Constitution that the determination of whether a person has been validly elected to Parliament or the seat of a Member of Parliament has become vacant shall be the responsibility of a high court, we have a genuine concern

10. When in its anxiety to grant to the plaintiff more than what he had asked for, the Court cited in support of its ruling, the unacceptability of the fact that the Speaker’s communication shall result in denying the constituents of the affected MPs representation in Parliament for a few weeks, when the same Court has hitherto looked on while the people of Santrokofi, Akpafu, Lolobi, and Likpe (SALL) have been denied representation in Parliament for a whole term of four years. And when the same Court had also previously injuncted Hon. Gyakye Quayson from representing his
constituents in Parliament, as urgently desired by the ruling NPP, and same was graciously granted them by the Supreme Court, we should obviously have a concern.

11. When the National Security Minister had cause to caution that it was a security threat when it appeared that the ruling party had always prevailed in every political matter in our courts, we should have a concern.

12. When the Mo Ibrahim Index on African Governance reported a drop from 100% to 50% in the autonomy of Ghana’s judiciary, meaning the confidence of Ghanaians in the independence of the judiciary to interpret laws without interference has been fractured considerably by the current NPP regime, we have a concern.

13. The enormity of the concerns stated in this statement puts us in great fear that the Supreme Court may easily overturn a genuinely-won election by the NDC and instead give victory to the NPP, and everyone shall be telling us that once it is a decision by the Supreme Court, we have no option but to obey it. This is of serious concern to us, Lawyers in Search of Democracy (LINSOD).

14. Most unfortunately, notwithstanding all of these genuine concerns by Ghanaians including lawyers, it seems we are being intimidated from speaking out to provide what many of us would consider as feedback for the courts. Recently, the Attorney General and Minister for Justice had urged the General Legal Council (GLC) to deal ruthlessly with lawyers who shall criticize the courts “unfairly.” We see this as an attempt to harass and bully lawyers for merely stating their disagreements with the courts vehemently.

15. Considering that this call has come from the Attorney General, Mr. Godfred Dame, who himself has recently misconducted himself grossly by asking a party he was prosecuting to fraudulently acquire a medical report to deceive a court and excuse himself from court, among other unethical conduct by him in that matter, and for which reason he would have been disciplined in any fair and reasonable jurisdiction,

our concerns have only deepened, and we are becoming hopeless. For these reasons, we are unable to remain silent. We must be allowed to express our views freely to advance our democratic practice and improve on justice delivery for all of us, please.

Long live Ghana!
Long live our Democracy!
/Signed/
ERIC DELANYO ALIFO, ESQ. PRESIDENT, LINSOD
TEL: 024 901 651

 

Read also…

 

Ambulance Trial: LINSOD Calls For Immediate Resignation Of Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame Amid Allegations of Misconduct

 

Click on the link to join the OnlineTimesGH News channel for curated, meaningful stories tailored just for

YOU: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VajF89Q6WaKprDT5mu2V

About The Author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *