The Vice President of IMANI Africa, Kofi Bentil, has commended the decision of the Majority Leader to petition the Supreme Court regarding the controversy surrounding the vacant seats in Parliament.

He described the move as prudent, emphasizing the Supreme Court’s demonstrated expertise in constitutional interpretation through detailed analyses of past cases.

Speaking on Joy FM’s Super Morning Show on Friday, November 15, Mr. Bentil dismissed claims that the issue should not have been taken to the Supreme Court.

“I have heard many people say this was very clear, everybody understands what it says, and so there is no doubt about it and it shouldn’t have even gone to the Supreme Court," he remarked. "That is totally debunked, it is debunked even on the fact before it went to court that certain people disagreed. The fact that you have a view, and I have a different view, showed clearly that there needed to be somebody to break that jam.”

Mr. Bentil explained that the Supreme Court’s intervention was necessary due to the disagreement on the matter, dismissing suggestions that the High Court should have been the first point of call.

“There was a point that it should go straight to the High Court and if the High Court felt there was a problem with interpretation, then they refer it to the Supreme Court, the High Court deals with the interpretation then it’s referred back to the Supreme Court to finish the matter,” he said.

However, he argued that the Supreme Court was right to assert jurisdiction in the case since it involved interpretation issues, a role uniquely suited to the apex court.

Referencing the Supreme Court’s ruling, Mr. Bentil pointed to Page 33 of the judgment, which, he said, supported his earlier assertions during the interview.

“When in one case you have matters of interpretation, and then other matters which are specifically given to a high court, the Supreme Court must necessarily take it. We don’t want a situation where it goes there and comes back, and goes there again wasting everybody’s time and going back and forth,” he explained.

He acknowledged Justice Tanko Amadu’s opposing view regarding the High Court’s jurisdiction being usurped but maintained that the majority ruling of the Supreme Court was sound.

“Well, clearly, the majority disagree with him,” he responded during the show.

Citing Page 12 of the ruling, Mr. Bentil emphasized that the Supreme Court’s assumption of jurisdiction was neither novel nor inappropriate. He recalled past situations where Parliament faced constitutional challenges, underscoring the importance of the Supreme Court stepping in to provide clarity.

“And so, for the Supreme Court to assume it, with all due respect, was the sensible thing to do, and that is what they did,” he concluded.