The Supreme Court has outlined its reasons for upholding a suit filed by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin.
It clarified that an MP can only vacate their seat if they change their political affiliation while serving in Parliament under the new identity.
In a judgment supporting Afenyo-Markin’s suit, the court explained that Articles 97(1)(g) and (h) of the Constitution apply solely to the current term of Parliament.
These provisions do not extend to future terms, meaning an MP running under a different political party in subsequent elections would not trigger a seat vacancy.
The court emphasized that an MP’s seat is vacated if they join a different party within Parliament and continue serving as a representative of that party.
“Therefore, the only plausible conclusion from a holistic reading of Articles 97(1)(g) and (h) is that an MP’s seat shall be vacated when they leave their elected party’s cohort in Parliament to join another party while seeking to remain as a member of the new party,” the court stated.
The court also ruled that an independent MP who joins a political party must vacate the seat originally held as an independent.
The ruling asserted that these constitutional provisions apply only to the current parliamentary term and do not cover future political intentions or aspirations.
“Thus, Articles 97(1)(g) and (h) must be interpreted within their contextual framework, with no indication that they apply to future electoral aspirations or plans, such as an MP contesting under a different party in the next election cycle,” the court noted.
Find the full Supreme Court judgement below:
READ ALSO: