The Supreme Court has dismissed an application for an interlocutory injunction seeking to prevent Parliament from proceeding with the vetting of new Ministers nominated by President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo.
In a unanimous decision today, a five-member panel of the court held that the application was frivolous and an abuse of the court process.
The applicant, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, Member of Parliament for South Dayi, had sought to halt the vetting process in Parliament pending the determination of his suit challenging the constitutionality of the President's decision to reassign Ministers without Parliament's involvement.
However, the Supreme Court ruled that the MP's case had no direct relevance to the nominees currently before Parliament, as it primarily concerns reassigned Ministers.
Source: Graphic.com.gh
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are those of the writers and do not reflect those of Peacefmonline.com. Peacefmonline.com accepts no responsibility legal or otherwise for their accuracy of content. Please report any inappropriate content to us, and we will evaluate it as a matter of priority. |
Ghana should be careful with some of these things .Whatever we are planting sowing now will grow and we will reap .It seem seems this gov wants to bring back criminal libel law . Even dumsor they don't want to accept it .Remember the lies put on Mahama .
Oh NDC go and confess. Hahahaha
@Arko, under normal circumstances, you're supposed to be making sense but unfortunately that is not the case in this context. You're comparing criminal cases that require proof beyond reasonable doubts on the part of prosecution to entirely different cases that only require constitutional interpretation. They're simply incomparable, the former has too many dynamics which can determine how long it should last. In any case, the hearing for the JB Danquah case started before the captain Mahama one, so again your argument doesn't hold. These two recent cases are of very high national interest especially the one against the family values bill, it was also presented first, so one one expect the hearing to have proceeded first, as to whether the determination will precede the parliament case, that's not the issue at stake. Why has the supreme court refused to begin hearing on the family bill that came to their table first which also has the highest national interest?
It is within the rights of NDC to criticize the supreme court but NDC is wrong. Why is that anytime they lose a case, they make noise? MP JB Danquah was murdered before Capt Mahama but the case of Capt Mahama has been dealt with and JB Danquah's trial is still ongoing. Can NDC explain this to me? There are many cases pending at Supreme Court, per NDC logic those cases should be heard first. What sort of logic is this?
The bedrock of any thriving democracy is anchored on fairness and application of law without fear or favour. Seriously recent happenings in courts calls for sobber reflection How on earth a case filed on the 5th March 2024 as against a case filed 2 weeks later and the latter has been called without recourse to fixing even hearing date for the former. God is in control. Tit for tat, can Supreme compel Speaker to reconvene Parliament? Certainly not. In the spirit of fairness, Honourable Speaker should play the hard Ball and delay recalling of parliament until June 2024 or until Richard Sky case is dealt with. Without this hardline stand, Executive and Judiciary will not take Parliament and democracy serious.
The Supreme Court always gives rulings and explains them for anyone to understand them but because of the partisan nature of our politics we don’t give them the credit they deserve but bashing them to throw dust in the public eyes.