Constitutional lawyer Bobby Banson has expressed his support for the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss an application by Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin to overturn a ruling that barred him from declaring four parliamentary seats vacant.

The ruling prevents Speaker Bagbin from enforcing his ruling declaring the seats of Agona West, Fomena, Amenfi Central, and Suhum vacant, thereby preserving the status quo in Parliament.

Banson described the Supreme Court’s judgment, delivered on Wednesday, October 30, as thorough and balanced.

According to him, the ruling carefully addressed all pertinent legal issues raised by both sides, providing a clear and well-grounded rationale.

He commended the court for its diligence in handling the sensitive matter involving the Speaker and the four disputed parliamentary seats.

Speaker Bagbin’s application had aimed to reverse an earlier Supreme Court ruling that prevented him from making declarations regarding the vacant status of these constituencies.

The court’s decision to uphold its initial judgment effectively means the seats will not be declared vacant as sought by the Speaker, allowing the affected Members of Parliament to retain their positions for the time being.

In his remarks, Banson praised the court for demonstrating legal rigour in its examination of each argument presented by the Speaker’s legal team and other parties involved.

He noted that the court’s judgment reflects a deep understanding of the legal principles governing parliamentary seats and electoral matters, reinforcing public confidence in the judiciary.

Banson further added that the court’s well-reasoned decision sets a significant precedent, highlighting the importance of legal checks and balances within Ghana’s democratic framework.

“The ruling is very solid on the basis that it covered every single issue that has been raised in the contentions summarised in the application that had been filed to set aside the orders of the Supreme Court on October 18."

“The ruling addressed each issue that had been raised and provided its reasons why it agreed or disagreed with either the applicant or the defendant on the other side and so I think it is a solid decision that has been rendered."

“The Supreme Court was of the view that before you can deny people that representation, you must first conclude that a Member of Parliament who has been elected by the people has breached the provisions in the article that are the subject of the suit."

“Now, the Supreme Court is of the position that as it stands now, because of the varying interpretation that had been put on those articles, you cannot come to a firm conclusion that MPs had indeed gone ahead to breach those constitutional provisions so do not hasten in concluding that they have breached articles but let the Supreme Court confirm the interpretation,” Bobby Banson said.