The Dean of the UPSA Law School, Prof Kofi Abotsi is concerned over the Supreme Court's failure to clearly outline what constitutes the vacation of a parliamentary seat in its recent ruling against the Speaker of Parliament.

The court’s decision overturned Speaker Alban Bagbin’s declaration of vacancies for Members of Parliament (MPs) seeking to contest upcoming elections on the tickets of parties other than those under which they were elected.

However, Prof Abotsi argues that while the court clarified what does not constitute a vacation of a seat, it did not comprehensively define the circumstances that would meet this criterion.

Speaking on JoyNews’ Newsfile, Prof Kofi Abotsi noted that "The court spoke in negative terms, explaining what does not amount to vacating a seat."

"However, it failed to provide a positive statement detailing what exactly constitutes the vacation of a seat. This leaves a significant gap, especially when the Constitution uses the phrase ‘leaving the party.’”

According to him, this ambiguity creates room for future disputes, as the ruling does not provide clear guidelines for determining whether an MP has vacated their seat by leaving their party.

"I would have been happier to have seen a more positive statement of the circumstances that constitute vacation of seats. Remember, leaving is just one, but the whole gamut of things that constitute vacation of seats. Because I really expect that this matter will arise again. And in the circumstances, I think we have only partially addressed it,” Prof Abotsi added.

Read also: Full Supreme Court ruling on vacant seats controversy