The Supreme Court has clarified its rationale for upholding Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin’s suit regarding the conditions under which a Member of Parliament (MP) may lose their seat.
In its ruling, the Court stated that any MP who changes political affiliation during their term and continues to serve in Parliament under a new party identity is considered to have vacated their seat. The decision reaffirms that Articles 97(1)(g) and (h) of the Constitution apply only to the current parliamentary term and do not extend to future terms or electoral ambitions.
The Court emphasized that switching party allegiance while holding office within the same term results in a mandatory forfeiture of the MP’s seat. This provision also applies to independent MPs, who must vacate their seats if they join a political party during their term.
In its detailed ruling, the Supreme Court made it clear that the constitutional articles in question do not govern MPs’ choices in future elections or political transitions. They pertain strictly to the MP’s current term in office and changes in affiliation within that period.
“The only plausible conclusion from a holistic and contextual reading of Article 97(1)(g) and (h) is that an MP’s seat shall be vacated upon departure from the cohort of their elected party in Parliament to join another party while seeking to remain in Parliament as a member of the new party,” the Court stated.
