Legal expert Kwame Boafo Akuffo has raised serious concerns about the Supreme Court’s handling of the recent Application for Stay of Execution in the case of Speaker Alban Bagbin declaring four seats vacant in Parliament, describing the Court’s approach as confusing and procedurally flawed. According to Akuffo, the Court has a duty to ensure consistency in the application of legal principles, a standard it failed to meet in this instance.
“The Supreme Court owes the public a duty to ensure consistent application of the principles of law,” Akuffo stated. He emphasized that inconsistency in legal rulings undermines the coherence of the law, creating a tangle of special rules that deviate from established legal norms.
Akuffo singled out several critical issues with the Court’s decision regarding Alex Markin’s application. “The first problem is the nature of the application itself,” he explained. “A party cannot seek an Application for Stay of Execution in respect of a matter which is not a judgment or a court order.” In this case, the Speaker’s decision to declare the parliamentary seats vacant does not qualify as such an order, making the request for a stay legally baseless. “It is absurd to seek a Stay of Execution in a case in which the Court has not made any orders. There was no jurisdiction in the Court,” Akuffo added.
He further argued that the cause of action had already been superseded by the Speaker’s actions before the case was heard. “The action was filed when the seats were yet to be declared vacant, but by the time of the hearing, the Speaker had already declared the seats vacant. The Application was not in sync with the writ before the Court,” Akuffo said, suggesting that the applicant’s legal filings were outdated.
Additionally, Akuffo noted that the Speaker’s declaration of vacant seats created a new cause of action, which the applicant had failed to reflect in an amended writ. “The grant of the Application was thus a merger of new facts with the old cause of action,” he said, adding, “You cannot put new wine in old wineskins. It cannot hold.”
In Akuffo’s view, the Court’s decision-making was “procedurally wrong in many ways.” He also raised concerns about the Court’s assumption of jurisdiction in the face of Article 99 of the 1992 Constitution, which he believes was improperly applied. According to Akuffo, this case could only have come before the Supreme Court by way of reference from a High Court filing, raising further doubts about the legitimacy of the proceedings.
Akuffo’s criticism comes as the Supreme Court’s decision continues to provoke widespread discussion about the judiciary’s role in politically sensitive cases and the importance of legal consistency.