The Supreme Court has dismissed the application seeking to restrain Parliament from sitting on the controversial CI 78 which will create 45 new constituencies. What it means is that the Court can now proceed to hear the substantive case brought before it by a businessman Ransford France. The businessman is describing the EC's creation of 45 new constituencies as illegal and wanted the court to rule on that. He was however praying the court will restrain Parliament from sitting on the CI 48 until the court has ruled. But Joy News’ Sammy Darko who was in court, reported that the Presiding judge, Justice Ansah who heard the arguments from both sides ruled in favour of the respondents. Darko reported the judge as saying that his ruling Wednesday does not mean the legal battle on the matter is over, adding that the court will now hear the substantive case brought before it. Explaining the reasons for dismissing the case the Judge cited a precedent- Tuffuor Vrs Attorney General- in which it was ruled that the court cannot interfere on issues that are before Parliament. He stated further, the court can only do so, if it is the case that Parliament was interfering in constitutional matters. He does not think Parliament by sitting on the controversial CI 78 is interfering with the constitution. The CI will fully mature in 21 days and become law. Justice Ansah also stated that for him to grant the injunction application, the plaintiff must show beyond doubt that he will suffer serious implication if the injunction is not granted. On the contrary, he explained it is rather the respondents- EC and the Attorney General- who will suffer serious implications with regards to a successful organisation of the election if the injunction is granted. But the plaintiff and his lawyers are unimpressed with the ruling. Atta Akyea, a member of the legal team described the ruling as a bit surprising. He told Darko the judge overlooked serious issues brought before him. According to him, Parliament cannot be allowed to subvert the constitution before the court takes action. You don’t wait for a car to crash before you take it to the workshop, he stated. He said the legal team will meet to take a collective decision as to whether they will go for a review. But the substantive case of illegality will now be heard at a later date. Meanwhile, lawyer Chris Ackumey early Wednesday morning also filed a motion against the plaintiffs’ request for the injunction. He said he is an aspiring MP in one of the newly created constituencies and any attempt by the plaintiff to scuttle the process will affect directly. He is therefore seeking the consent of the judge to join the respondent in opposing the writ filed by the plaintiff. But the plaintiff said arguments by Lawyer Ackumey is untenable. They contend if the judge should allow him to join the case, it will open the flood gates for all who are directly or remotely affected by this case to, sooner or later file to join this particular case. The judge will adjudicate on this particular case next week.