Chairman of the NPP’s Constitutional and Legal Committee, Frank Davies, has clarified that the recent Supreme Court ruling declaring the Speaker’s action unconstitutional was not anticipated by the party.

In a 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, ruled that the Speaker’s declaration could not stand, a verdict announced on Tuesday.

In an interview on Joy News’ PM Express, Mr Davies stated that the Speaker of Parliament had been given ample opportunity to defend the legality of the declaration in court but did not file a defence.

“The Speaker was given the opportunity to present their statement of case before the court. They didn’t do that. Do you think the judges should have waited for the Speaker indefinitely?” he questioned, implying that the court had proceeded fairly under the circumstances.

The Supreme Court ruling, Mr. Davies explained, was based on the merits of the case and not on assumptions.

“It’s wrong to say that it was anticipated,” he said, underscoring that a split decision on the panel, with two judges dissenting, showed the complexity of the legal issue.

“Even without them filing a statement of the case, five other justices held that the interpretation was not in favour of the Speaker. Two of the judges dissented; what are we going to say about them too?” he added, highlighting the independence and diversity of judicial opinion.

The decision’s split underscores the nuanced legal arguments considered by the Supreme Court.

Mr Davies pointed out that the dissenting justices offered differing views despite the Speaker’s lack of defence filing, reinforcing that the ruling could not be construed as predictable or foregone.

Mr Davies urged the public to appreciate the judicial process and respect the decision of the court, noting that the ruling reflects the careful deliberation of the Supreme Court justices.

“This judgment is a clear representation of judicial independence and underscores the commitment of our courts to uphold the constitution, even in complex cases.”