Vacant seats saga: All the legal terminologies explained

Recent tensions between Ghana’s Judiciary and Legislature have underscored several critical legal and parliamentary terms, such as plaintiff, defendant, writ, ex parte, reliefs sought, adjournment sine die, quorum, bona fide, and jurisdiction.

These terms are integral to understanding the mechanisms by which Ghana’s constitutional framework addresses rights, processes, and governance. This article explores these terms in detail, especially in light of a recent legal challenge led by Alexander Afenyo-Markin, an NPP leader in Parliament, who contested Speaker Alban Bagbin’s decision to declare certain parliamentary seats vacant.

Plaintiff and Defendant: Roles in the Legal Dispute

In legal proceedings, a plaintiff is the party who initiates a lawsuit, while the defendant is the party against whom the lawsuit is filed.

In this case, Alexander Afenyo-Markin acted as the plaintiff by bringing the issue to court on behalf of his colleagues, challenging the Speaker’s declaration of certain parliamentary seats as vacant. He contended that this decision infringed on constitutional rights to fair representation and due process, asserting that the declaration violated the constitutional provisions ensuring MPs’ rightful presence in Parliament.

Speaker Alban Bagbin was the defendant, as his decision to declare the seats vacant was the subject of the legal challenge. Afenyo-Markin, representing the interests of the affected MPs, argued that the Speaker’s declaration lacked a constitutional basis and that the MPs’ rights to representation were being undermined.

The plaintiff cited Articles 12 to 33 of the Ghanaian Constitution (which cover fundamental human rights) and Article 19, which ensures the right to a fair hearing.

Example:

Alexander Afenyo-Markin (plaintiff) argued that Speaker Bagbin’s (defendant) action in declaring seats vacant infringed upon MPs’ constitutional rights to represent their constituencies, calling for judicial intervention.

Writs and Reliefs Sought: Enforcing Constitutional Remedies

A writ is a formal court order that instructs a party to undertake or cease a particular action. In this instance, Afenyo-Markin, on behalf of the affected MPs, filed writs with the Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of the Speaker’s declaration of vacant seats.

Accompanying these writs were reliefs sought—the specific remedies requested from the court, which included reversing the Speaker’s decision and reinstating the MPs’ seats.

Article 33 of Ghana’s Constitution empowers individuals and groups to seek judicial remedies when they believe their rights have been compromised. Afenyo-Markin’s writs cited this provision, underscoring the MPs’ right to pursue redress through the courts as a constitutional safeguard to maintain fair representation and due legislative process.

Example Reliefs Sought:

Injunctions to halt the Speaker’s declarations of seat vacancies.

A declaration that the vacancy declarations contravened constitutional protections, violating the MPs’ rights to maintain their legislative seats.

Ex Parte Applications: Ensuring Immediate Judicial Intervention

Ex parte, meaning “by or for one party” in Latin, pertains to applications made by one party without notifying the opposing side, typically in urgent situations. In this dispute, Afenyo-Markin filed ex parte motions to immediately suspend the Speaker’s decision, arguing that such actions could irreparably impact the MPs’ roles in Parliament if allowed to take effect before a full hearing.

The ex parte application was intended to provide immediate relief, preventing the Speaker’s declaration from impacting parliamentary representation during the judicial review process.

According to Article 19 of the Ghanaian Constitution, all parties are entitled to due process and a fair hearing, but ex parte motions are permissible in situations requiring urgent action to prevent harm. Afenyo-Markin argued that letting the Speaker’s declaration stand, even temporarily, would disrupt the MPs’ representation of their constituents and the overall functioning of Parliament.

Example Use:

Afenyo-Markin’s ex parte application sought an injunction against the Speaker’s action, emphasizing the need to suspend the vacancy declaration until a full court hearing could assess its constitutionality.

This use of ex parte motions reflects the Ghanaian legal system’s allowance for immediate intervention in cases of potential harm while ensuring a full review at a later stage.

Adjournment Sine Die and Quorum: Protecting Parliamentary Procedure

Adjournment sine die means adjourning “without a day” set to reconvene, essentially suspending legislative sessions indefinitely. In response to the lack of quorum—the minimum number of MPs required for parliamentary business—Speaker Bagbin adjourned Parliament sine die.

According to Article 102 of the Ghanaian Constitution, a quorum in Parliament requires the presence of at least one-third of all Members of Parliament. This provision ensures that Parliament’s decisions are backed by a minimum representative attendance.

Speaker Bagbin cited the lack of quorum as the reason for his decision to adjourn proceedings sine die, arguing that legislative actions conducted without the constitutional minimum would be invalid. This reflects the Constitution’s procedural requirements, emphasizing the importance of quorum to maintain the legitimacy of legislative actions.

Example Use:

Speaker Bagbin declared, “Without quorum, we cannot proceed with any parliamentary business,” emphasizing the necessity of adhering to the constitutional quorum requirements.

By adjourning sine die, the Speaker sought to uphold the integrity of parliamentary processes and prevent the assembly from making decisions without adequate representation.

Bona Fide Intentions: Acting in Good Faith

The term bona fide, meaning “in good faith,” is significant in this context, as it implies honest and sincere actions taken without deceit. Public officials, including MPs, are expected to act in bona fide alignment with their constitutional and public service obligations.

In this case, Afenyo-Markin argued that the MPs’ actions were bona fide efforts to serve their constituents, even as they faced accusations of disloyalty to party lines.

Article 55(10) requires MPs to maintain loyalty to their political party while in office, suggesting that bona fide actions must align with party commitments unless the MP formally resigns. The plaintiff’s argument was that the MPs’ decisions reflected a commitment to their roles rather than any intention to undermine party loyalty.

Example Statement:

Afenyo-Markin defended the MPs, stating, “These actions were done in good faith and in the best interest of the people we represent,” reinforcing the argument that their conduct was motivated by public service rather than party disloyalty.

Jurisdiction: Defining the Supreme Court’s Authority

Jurisdiction refers to a court’s authority to preside over cases and issue binding decisions. Under Article 130 of Ghana’s Constitution, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over constitutional matters, especially when disputes arise concerning the interpretation of the Constitution.

Afenyo-Markin invoked the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in this case to clarify the legality of the Speaker’s powers and determine whether his actions fell within constitutional limits.

The Supreme Court’s role as the final interpreter of the Constitution ensures checks and balances between branches of government, enabling the judiciary to provide clarity in conflicts involving constitutional boundaries. Afenyo-Markin and his colleagues asserted that the court’s intervention was necessary to affirm the Speaker’s powers and limits in declaring seats vacant.

Example Statement:

“Our recourse to the courts is to seek clarity on the Speaker’s powers in a situation like this,” Afenyo-Markin explained, underscoring the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in resolving disputes between government branches.

Additional Legal and Parliamentary Terms

Standing Orders: These are parliamentary rules that outline procedures for legislative activities. Speaker Bagbin’s reliance on Standing Orders to justify his actions reflects how these rules complement constitutional requirements by guiding specific processes such as quorum, adjournments, and debates.

Fundamental Human Rights: Chapter 5 of Ghana’s Constitution enshrines fundamental rights, particularly Articles 12 to 33. These rights were central to Afenyo-Markin’s argument, as he claimed that denying the MPs’ representation without due process infringed upon the constitutional rights of both MPs and their constituents.

Conclusion

The ongoing legal and constitutional disputes between Ghana’s Judiciary and Legislature underscore the importance of terms such as plaintiff, defendant, writ, ex parte, reliefs sought, adjournment sine die, quorum, bona fide, and jurisdiction.

These terms go beyond mere legal formalities; they are foundational elements of Ghana’s constitutional framework, ensuring the protection of citizens’ rights, fair representation, and the peaceful resolution of disputes between branches of government.

This case highlights the Constitution’s role in upholding democratic principles, safeguarding legislative integrity, and maintaining a balance of power within Ghana’s governance system.

The post Vacant seats saga: All the legal terminologies explained first appeared on 3News.

Read Full Story