True meaning of Article 97(1)(g) and (h) as clarified by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of Ghana has interpreted Article 97(1)(g) and (h) bringing finality to the recent disagreements and arguments in Parliament, and even among the general public.

In its full judgment on a case filed by Majority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin against the Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney General, the seven-member panel in the opinion of Darko Asare JSC held among others that Article 97(1)(g) is aimed at guarding against a scenario where majority members might unduly influence opposition MPs to join them, undermining parliamentary opposition and scrutiny of government action.

Their Lordships established on  Article 97(1)(g) that;

In the result, we hold that upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 97(1)(g) the legal elements of that provision can be formulated as follows: (I) an MP must vacate his seat, (ii) if he leaves the party under which he was elected, to join another party or become independent, and (iii) seeks to remain in Parliament under their new political status.

On  Article 97(1)(h) the court said; 

Similarly, with regards to Article 97(1)(h) the proper legal elements can be formulated as follows: (i) an independent MP must vacate his seat, (ii) if he joins a political party in Parliament, and (iii) seeks to remain in Parliament under his new polltical status.

The Court also cautioned that;

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 materiallze In subsequent terms, such as an MP contesting under a different ticket in the next election cycle.

The Supreme Court then affirmed on the contrary that;

actions calculated to take effect after the term, like evincing an intention to join a party for a future election, do not interfere with the voters' mandate and do not therefore fall within the contemplation of the law. The law serves to preserve the trust voters placed in the MP when they were elected, based on the platform they represented at that time.

The court then established that;

Apart from the above, it can be seen that Article 97(1)(g) & (h) of the Constitution is also concerned with actions that affect the numerical composition of the House of Parliament as presently constituted, aiming to avoid situations that disrupt parliamentary composition mid-term, altering its dynamics without voter input. This underscores the provision's distinct focus on maintaining parliamentary stability and respecting the proportional representation decided at the general election, rather than rigidly enforcing political loyalty. Hence filing nominations for a future election under a different party affiliation, does not fall within the law's scope, given its non-disruptive nature to the current parliament's composition.

The Supreme thus ended the controversy and confusion by emphasizing that;

The fact that the Constitution's primary aim is to prevent mid-term disruptions by MP party switches, receives further bolstering by the provisions of Article 97(2) of the Constitution which makes it clear that the Constitution allows certain political changes within the current parliamentary term, such as mergers or coalitions, without requiring MPs to vacate their seats. This confirms that the focus of the law is on mid-term shifts in membership of Parliament, and not on future political alignments or electoral plans, and a conjunctive reading of Article 97(1)(g) & (h) alongside Article 97(2) forcefully conveys this legislative intent.

Furthermore the apex court said;

Article 97(1)(g) does not give political parties the power to disrupt the balance of Parliament by removing MPs based on internal party decisions.We also evaluate the purpose of Article 97(1)(g) as aiming to guard against a scenario where majority members might unduly influence opposition MPs to join them, undermining parliamentary opposition and scrutiny of government action.