Franklin Cudjoe, the founding President of IMANI Africa,
Franklin Cudjoe, the founding President of IMANI Africa, has expressed dismay at the Supreme Court’s use of double standards in the case of the four seats declared empty by Speaker Alban Bagbin.
Cudjoe stated in an opinion that it was startling that the Chief Justice who presided over the case today was so concerned about it but failed to demonstrate the same concern for the constituents of Santrokofi, Akpafu, Lolobi, and Likpe (SALL).
He argued that when the residents of SALL went to court to seek redress after being disenfranchised in the 2020 parliamentary election, the Supreme Court failed to deal with the problem in the same way that it dealt with the issue of MPs whose seats were declared vacant by Speaker Alban Bagbin.
“And yet, when my SALL people were deliberately disenfranchised and we ran to the same Supreme Court for protection, it did not offer this level of comfort it so lavishly and without shame displayed today towards other constituencies.
“We had gone to the Supreme Court to expeditiously protect our rights that had been violated and had the highest risk of being violated for the duration of the existing Parliament.”
Franklin Cudjoe questioned what was so remarkable about the four MPs whose seats had been declared vacant for the court to employ the speed of light in determining the matter, raising the possibility that their emoluments and other benefits would be affected.
The Supreme Court has declared its decision to grant the stay of execution of Speaker Alban Bagbin’s declaration of four seats vacant because no by-elections could lawfully be held to replace the affected MPs between October 17, 2024, and January 7, 2025.
Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, the chair of the five-member panel that presided over the matter, stated that this was a factor that weighed heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision to grant the stay of execution.
“This exceptional circumstance arising from the outcome of the ruling weighed on the mind of the Supreme Court to grant an order directing a stay of execution of the ruling of the Speaker on 17th October 2024.”
However, Franklin Cudjoe questioned why the Supreme Court did not apply the same reasoning it used against SALL to lawyers representing the Majority Leader.
“What was so special about the four constituencies whose MPs had abandoned in their hearts that the Supreme Court can even entertain the hearing of an ex-parte motion procured cheaply at the speed of light and rule on that? That the delinquent MPs’ salaries and emoluments will be affected? Really??”
Read his opinion below:
I am so shocked at the level of hypocrisy and double standards displayed by the Supreme Court today. The Chief Justice was so invested in the representation of constituents whose pampered MPs had decided to abandon them for other parties after representing them for nearly four years.
And yet, when my SALL people were deliberately disenfranchised and we ran to the same Supreme Court for protection, it did not offer this level of comfort it so lavishly and without shame displayed today towards other constituencies.
We had gone to the Supreme Court to expeditiously protect our rights that had been violated and had the highest risk of being violated for the duration of the existing Parliament.
So we went to the High Court to start our SALL case. Guess what? After three years of making our case, the High Court ruled a few months ago that it had no jurisdiction to hear our case.
For four years, we have been rendered orphans and ostracized by the system and yet we paid taxes although we saw no development. We are appealing to the Superior Court. However, with today’s contrived, shambolic display of ‘politically biased’ support for some Ghanaians, I am not sure we will get to be heard until forever.
What was so special about the four constituencies whose MPs had abandoned in their hearts that the Supreme Court can even entertain the hearing of an ex-parte motion procured cheaply at the speed of light and rule on that?
That the delinquent MPs’ salaries and emoluments will be affected? Really?? Why didn’t the Supreme Court rely on the same principle it applied against SALL to lawyers of the Majority Leader? This is just precocious judicial terrorism aided by legal plunder. Sad.