Yes, there are consequences for disobeying court orders. But I think the Speaker of Parliament must ignore the Supreme Court orders which seek to stifle the Speaker’s hands; frustrate and inhibit the performance of his duties; and unnecessarily control and regulate the proceedings of the Parliament of Ghana.
The Speaker must defy the Court’s orders to assert the independence of the legislature, and to make an everlasting history. If the Speaker does this, it shall re-assert the principle of separation of powers, and the relative workings and respect for the co-equal arms of government.
Let’s see if the worse consequence for defying court orders shall be triggered and meted out to the Speaker if he stands up to the Court. Whatever may happen, history shall be made — the Speaker shall be a hero and an icon of our democracy, and his act shall change the course of our democracy forever.
Indeed, there are enough bases for everyone to see that our courts, and particularly the Supreme Court has become overly bias and partisan, and the Court’s inconsistency in political matters is making nonsence of several well-settled rules and legal principles just to appease the current NPP administration.
Though everyone has noticed that the Court’s attitude and decision in the current controversy in Parliament are overreaching and bias, some are advising the Speaker to just accept and be bullied by the Supreme Court. I am unable to support this position. On the contrary, I would defy the orders of the Court if I were the Speaker.
Classic ‘Political Question’ Doctrine:
The ‘political question’ doctrine is simply a common sense, common law position that holds that if certain controversies are typically political in nature, the courts shall not wade in and/or hear actions that may be brought on the back of such controversies. This doctrine must be adhered to in every proper democracy, and must be observed in Ghana too.
To demonstrate that the current melee in Parliament presents a classic ‘political question,’ which the courts must not interfere with, come along, and lemme try an explanation…..
- Remember that the 4 MPs, whose seats were declared vacant by the Speaker did not complain of their rights having been infringed, and they did not institute any action against the Speaker.
- Remember also that nobody from any of the four affected constituencies has complained of any infringement of their rights. None has complained that they were denied representation.
ONLY COMPLAINANT IS NPP
- The plaintiff is the NPP Caucus in Parliament. Their problem is that the Speaker’s declaration has changed their status of being a majority caucus in Parliament to become the minority caucus. They want the Supreme Court to intervene and help them to be restored as the majority group. This is a typical political matter, which the Supreme Court must not have entertained at all, but instead leave for the legislature to deal with.
Let’s see how things play out.
Thank you all for reading.
Eric DELANYO Alifo, Esq.
