NDC disagrees with verdict of apex court
Former NDC MP says top court delivering jurisprudence of convenience
Alhaji Inusah Fuseini, a former National Democratic Congress lawmaker and lawyer, has observed the emergence of a new type of jurisprudence by the Supreme Court of the land.
According to him, the April 13 ruling of the apex court, in which it ruled via a 5 – 2 decision to oust the NDC MP for Assin Central was the latest in what he called ‘jurisprudence of convenience.’
He said in an interview with Joy News earlier this week, that the specific ruling that ousted James Gyakye Quayson had left many people confused.
“The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court has now left everybody confused because the Supreme Court in situations like this, always tries to hold the balance. The balance between representation and the requirement for justice.
“It looks like in this particular case and in recent decisions of the Supreme Court, a new jurisprudence is emerging and that is the jurisprudence of convenience because when the Electoral Commission decided that they will use the birth certificate and the voter ID card for purposes of establishing citizenship to get into the new register, the Supreme Court upheld it,” he stated.
He is worried that the same court has refused to accept the discretion of the same EC, who in the case of Gyakye Quayson okayed his candidature before he was allowed to contest the 2020 election at a time he was in the process of renouncing his Canadian citizenship.
“In this case (Assin North ruling), again, the Supreme Court decided to overlook the exercise of discretion of the EC when the petitioner invoked their jurisdiction in the first instance to determine whether or not the embattled MP was eligible to contest the election.
“The matter had come before the EC and the EC upon a review of all the documents submitted by the petitioner qualified the respondent to contest.
“In one way, you can see what is happening in court, it is a judicial review of the administrative decision of the EC, so you have in one breath the Supreme Court is upholding the powers of the EC to take decisions and in another vein, it is saying no, that decision as an electoral body you cannot take and we are reviewing your administrative decision to qualify somebody to contest, even though they have not clearly said so,” he added.
According to him, there is increasing uncertainty and a matter of convenience in the jurisprudence of the apex court which he stressed “is very dangerous for our democracy, very dangerous for the practice of law.
“Because lawyers must have an idea which way the SC will go, that is the essence of precedence,” Fuseini stressed.
Background
In July 2021, a High Court in Cape Coast nullified the election of the Assin North MP, after it found that he owed allegiance to Canada at the time of filing his nomination forms to contest the polls.
Michael Ankomah Nimfah, a resident of the constituency, filed the petition in court and later initiated another action at the Supreme Court to enforce the High Court's decision.
He urged the Court to prevent a further breach of the constitution by restraining the MP.
On Wednesday, April 13, the Supreme Court in a 5-2 decision ruled on the issue by barring the Assin North MP from performing any Parliamentary duty.
This is until the determination of the substantive case filed against him at the Supreme Court.
Inusah Fuseini