Thaddeus Sory, counsel for Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin, has clarified that the recent Supreme Court ruling on the status of four contested parliamentary seats does not include any directive against the Speaker. Sory’s comments, shared on social media, outlined the court’s decision, emphasizing that the majority opinion did not declare the Speaker’s response to the situation as null or void.
Sory noted that Justice Darko Asare, who authored the lead judgment, recognized that the Speaker’s statement made after the NDC caucus leader invoked Article 97(1)(g) of the Constitution was issued two days after the plaintiff filed the original case. Therefore, the plaintiff’s initial request to the court did not specifically challenge the Speaker’s subsequent response. The majority decision, Sory argued, focused on the procedural elements rather than on any formal order regarding the Speaker’s actions.
While the court assumed jurisdiction over the Speaker’s statement due to its “intimate connection” with the case, Justice Asare’s and Justice Asiedu’s final judgments did not invalidate the Speaker’s decision. Justice Asiedu expressed constitutional disagreement with the Speaker’s interpretation, but did not issue a nullifying order.
Sory concluded that the earlier stay of execution, which temporarily halted the Speaker’s ruling, has now expired, leaving no binding directive for Parliament to recognize the four MPs as legitimate representatives.
