Founding president of IMANI Africa, Franklin Cudjoe, has voiced his disappointment regarding the Supreme Court's apparent double standards in the matter of the four parliamentary seats declared vacant by Speaker Alban Bagbin.

In a recent opinion piece, Cudjoe remarked on the Chief Justice's heightened concern over this case, contrasting it with the lack of attention given to the constituents of Santrokofi, Akpafu, Lolobi, and Likpe (SALL).

He pointed out that when residents of SALL sought judicial intervention after being disenfranchised during the 2020 parliamentary elections, the Supreme Court did not address their grievances with the same urgency as it did in the case involving the MPs whose seats were declared vacant by Speaker Bagbin.

“And yet, when my SALL people were deliberately disenfranchised and we ran to the same Supreme Court for protection, it did not offer this level of comfort it so lavishly and without shame displayed on Wednesday towards other constituencies.

"We had gone to the Supreme Court to expeditiously protect our rights that had been violated and had the highest risk of being violated for the duration of the existing Parliament.”

Franklin Cudjoe expressed scepticism regarding the urgency with which the court addressed the case of the four MPs whose seats were declared vacant, questioning why such rapid action was taken. He suggested that this haste may be linked to the potential impact on the MPs' salaries and other benefits.

The Supreme Court ruled to grant a stay of execution on Speaker Alban Bagbin’s declaration of the four vacant seats, citing that no lawful by-elections could be conducted to replace the affected MPs between October 17, 2024, and January 7, 2025.

Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, who led the five-member panel overseeing the case, emphasised that this timeline was a significant factor in the court’s decision to grant the stay of execution.

“This exceptional circumstance arising from the outcome of the ruling weighed on the mind of the Supreme Court to grant an order directing a stay of execution of the ruling of the Speaker on 17th October 2024.”

However, Franklin Cudjoe questioned why the Supreme Court did not apply the same reasoning it used against SALL to lawyers representing the Majority Leader.

“What was so special about the four constituencies whose MPs had abandoned in their hearts that the Supreme Court can even entertain the hearing of an ex-parte motion procured cheaply at the speed of light and rule on that? That the delinquent MPs' salaries and emoluments will be affected? Really??”

Read his opinion below:

I am so shocked at the level of hypocrisy and double standards displayed by the Supreme Court today. The Chief Justice was so invested in the representation of constituents whose pampered MPs had decided to abandon them for other parties after representing them for nearly four years.

And yet, when my SALL people were deliberately disenfranchised and we ran to the same Supreme Court for protection, it did not offer this level of comfort it so lavishly and without shame displayed today towards other constituencies.

We had gone to the Supreme Court to expeditiously protect our rights that had been violated and had the highest risk of being violated for the duration of the existing Parliament.

So we went to the High Court to start our SALL case. Guess what? After three years of making our case, the High Court ruled a few months ago that it had no jurisdiction to hear our case.

For four years, we have been rendered orphans and ostracised by the system and yet we paid taxes although we saw no development. We are appealing to the Superior Court. However, with Wednesday's contrived, shambolic display of ‘politically biassed' support for some Ghanaians, I am not sure we will get to be heard until forever.

What was so special about the four constituencies whose MPs had abandoned in their hearts that the Supreme Court can even entertain the hearing of an ex-parte motion procured cheaply at the speed of light and rule on that?

That the delinquent MPs' salaries and emoluments will be affected? Really?? Why didn’t the Supreme Court rely on the same principle it applied against SALL to lawyers of the Majority Leader? This is just precocious judicial terrorism aided by legal plunder. Sad.