The Legal Director of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Godwin Edudzi Tameklo, says the Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Godfred Yeboah Dame, received the outcome he desired by the Supreme Court ruling on the Speaker's declaration, so any objections now are contradictory.

In response to the Supreme Court’s recent 5-2 ruling deeming the Speaker of Parliament’s declaration unconstitutional, he raised questions about complaints that the Speaker did not file a defence.

Reflecting on the legal process leading to the ruling, Mr Tameklo questioned the Attorney General’s initial arguments regarding the Speaker’s representation.

“If my memory serves me right, in the last hearing, the Attorney General sought to create the impression that Thaddeus Sory, the Speaker’s lawyer, lacked proper authority to represent the Speaker,” he told Joy News’ PM Express on Tuesday.

He added that Mr Dame even argued that, in constitutional cases, he himself ought to be the one defending the action.

“So if the Attorney General, by coincidence or otherwise, has been given what he wished for, why the complaint?” he asked, suggesting that Dame’s stance on the Speaker’s legal representation aligned with the outcome.

Mr Tameklo elaborated that the Supreme Court, by interpreting the Constitution, was not bound by the arguments presented in written submissions.

“The fundamental question is, is the Supreme Court bound by the written arguments of the parties? The court has consistently stated that they are not bound by these arguments,” he stated.

He emphasised that the Supreme Court is mandated to uphold the Constitution and, while legal submissions serve to support this process, they do not dictate the court’s ultimate interpretation.

In Mr Tameklo’s view, the Attorney General’s insistence on having authority in constitutional matters involving the Speaker appears to have influenced the proceedings.

“The Attorney General argued that the Public Procurement Authority (PPA) approval was required and questioned Mr. Sory’s standing to represent the Speaker.

"That was his position, so, in essence, he got his wish,” Mr Tameklo noted, suggesting that any concerns Mr Dame might raise about the Speaker’s failure to file a defence now seem misplaced.

The NDC lawyer pointed out that constitutional cases should prioritise substantive issues over procedural or representational disputes, especially in matters of national significance.

He stated that the ruling, regardless of differing opinions, stands as the court’s independent interpretation of the Constitution, aimed at maintaining democratic integrity.

“The Supreme Court’s role is to interpret the Constitution, not to be bound by party submissions. Our submissions only assist, not determine, the final ruling,” he said, reaffirming his respect for the judicial process.

The decision, he argued, reinforces the need for clarity on the roles and limits of both Parliament and the Executive to prevent similar conflicts in the future.