Lawyer Kwame Akuffo punches Supreme Court over vacant seats ruling; says it lacks principle
Private legal practitioner Kwame Akuffo has criticized the legal handling of the recent vacant parliamentary seats controversy, pointing out significant procedural flaws and inconsistencies in the Supreme Court’s rulings. In particular, he highlights the court’s decision in the case of Alexander Afenyo-Markin’s application for a Stay of Execution, arguing that the decision lacked legal foundation and coherence.
Akuffo emphasized the importance of consistency in legal practice, stating, “Inconsistency tends to undermine the coherence of the law and generates a mass of disparate special rules distinct from those known under the law.” He warned that the court’s approach in this case risks setting a troubling precedent.
Jurisdictional Overreach and Procedural Errors
Akuffo’s primary concern is the basis of Afenyo-Markin’s application. He contends that a Stay of Execution can only be requested following a court order or judgment. In this instance, the application was based on the Speaker of Parliament’s declaration of the parliamentary seats as vacant—a decision that is not judicial in nature. Akuffo remarked, “A party cannot seek an Application for Stay of Execution in respect of a matter which is not a Judgment or a Court order. The Speaker’s order is not of such.”
He added that since no court order was involved, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear the application. Akuffo deemed it inappropriate for the court to consider a Stay of Execution in a case without a judicial ruling, accusing the court of overstepping its bounds.
A New Cause of Action, Unaddressed by the Court
Akuffo also highlighted a more fundamental issue: the declaration of the vacant seats by the Speaker introduced a new cause of action, which was not reflected in Afenyo-Markin’s original writ. The case, as initially filed, addressed a situation where the seats had not yet been declared vacant. By the time the case reached the court, the Speaker’s actions had significantly changed the facts.
Akuffo argued that the application was “not in sync with the writ before the Court” and that this misalignment should have been addressed before any decision was made. He warned that failing to adjust the writ to match the new circumstances led to a flawed legal process, concluding, “You cannot put new wine in old wineskins. It cannot hold.”
This criticism raises concerns about the court’s role in setting potentially inconsistent legal precedents.
