The media must get it right.Two judges dissented on the original jurisdiction over the vacant seat case. They did not dissent that Bagbin was wrong to remove the four MPs from parliament.
Explicit Supreme Court Ruling 1. The speaker was wrong by law to remove the four MPs from the Parliament. 2. The speaker was wrong by jurisdiction to declare the four seats vacant. 3.The High Court has the mandate to declare a vacant seat. 4. The Supreme Court has the mandate to take over the case of any lower Court that involves the interpretation and enforcement of Ghana's constitution.
The Supreme Court has spoken. Bagbin runs from justice. Asiamah is vindicated. Ghana is the winner. Supreme Court ruling: 1.The interpretation of the constitution is solely the duty of the Supreme Court. . 2.The petition by any individual or a party to determine a vacant seat is within the purview of the High Court. 3.The speaker acts on the decision of the High Court and not his own to declare a vacant seat. 4.The Speaker cannot usurp the powers of the court. His ruling, decision or the judgement to remove the four MPs was unlawful. His opinion was immaterial. It has no effects. 5.A party constitution and decision cannot supersede the constitution of Ghana. 5.The decision to change the future political status does not affect the present political reality. 6.The four MPs sacked by Bagbin must continue to function as MPs in the parliament for their constituencies. The Supreme Court ruling shows that Hon. Asiamah was wrongfully removed from parliament four years ago.
Atuguba is wrong just like Bagbin and the two dissenting judges. The High Court had the jurisdiction to declare the vacant seat. That was what Bagbin should have done to seek the directions of the High Court. As Bagbin violated that process and failed to go to the High Court, he also misinterpreted the constitution to remove the four MPs from parliament. By that action, Bagbin triggered the mandate of the Supreme Court. By the nature of the case and the character of Bagbin, the case would have travelled through the High Court and the Appeal Court to the Supreme Court. That is what Atuguba, Bagbin and the dissenting judges might have wished, but Ghana has no such pleasure of time.
![เปิด อาณาจักร หมื่นล้าน "สาระตั้ม" l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3XE0nPF4YkQ/mqdefault.jpg)
The media must get it right.Two judges dissented on the original jurisdiction over the vacant seat case. They did not dissent that Bagbin was wrong to remove the four MPs from parliament.
Explicit Supreme Court Ruling
1. The speaker was wrong by law to remove the four MPs from the Parliament.
2. The speaker was wrong by jurisdiction to declare the four seats vacant.
3.The High Court has the mandate to declare a vacant seat.
4. The Supreme Court has the mandate to take over the case of any lower Court that involves the interpretation and enforcement of Ghana's constitution.
The Supreme Court has spoken. Bagbin runs from justice. Asiamah is vindicated. Ghana is the winner.
Supreme Court ruling:
1.The interpretation of the constitution is solely the duty of the Supreme Court. .
2.The petition by any individual or a party to determine a vacant seat is within the purview of the High Court.
3.The speaker acts on the decision of the High Court and not his own to declare a vacant seat.
4.The Speaker cannot usurp the powers of the court. His ruling, decision or the judgement to remove the four MPs was unlawful. His opinion was immaterial. It has no effects.
5.A party constitution and decision cannot supersede the constitution of Ghana.
5.The decision to change the future political status does not affect the present political reality.
6.The four MPs sacked by Bagbin must continue to function as MPs in the parliament for their constituencies.
The Supreme Court ruling shows that Hon. Asiamah was wrongfully removed from parliament four years ago.
Atuguba is wrong just like Bagbin and the two dissenting judges. The High Court had the jurisdiction to declare the vacant seat. That was what Bagbin should have done to seek the directions of the High Court. As Bagbin violated that process and failed to go to the High Court, he also misinterpreted the constitution to remove the four MPs from parliament. By that action, Bagbin triggered the mandate of the Supreme Court. By the nature of the case and the character of Bagbin, the case would have travelled through the High Court and the Appeal Court to the Supreme Court. That is what Atuguba, Bagbin and the dissenting judges might have wished, but Ghana has no such pleasure of time.