MPs can only vacate seats upon changing political identity – Supreme Court justifies

The Supreme Court has given a thorough explanation of its reasoning for upholding Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin’s lawsuit.

A Member of Parliament (MP) can only be deemed to have resigned from office, according to the Supreme Court, if they alter their political identification and continue to serve in Parliament under the new identity.

The court explained that Articles 97(1)(g) and (h) of the Constitution only apply to the current term of Parliament in a ruling supporting a suit filed by the Majority Leader. Future terms, such as when an MP runs for office under a different party affiliation, are exempt from these clauses.

The court underlined that if an MP changes parties within Parliament while still being a member of the new party, their seat is forfeited.

“It follows from the above therefore, that the only plausible conclusion which must necessarily flow from a holistic and contextual reading of Article 97(1)(g) and (h) is that an MP’s seat shall be vacated upon departure from the cohort of his elected party in Parliament to join another party in Parliament while seeking to remain in that Parliament as a member of the new party,” the court held.

Two of the Justices who dissented from the same ruling believed that an independent MP who joins a political party must give up the seat they previously held as an independent.

The Court further said that the constitutional provisions in question are not meant to cover future election aspirations or candidacies, but rather should be interpreted within the framework of the current legislative term.

“Consequently, Article 97(1)(g) and (h) must be understood within their contextual framework, with no implicit or explicit indication that they pertain to future electoral aspirations or intentions that would materialize in subsequent terms, such as an MP contesting under a different ticket in the next election cycle,” the court held.