Member of Parliament for Abuakwa South, Samuel Atta-Akyea, has dismissed claims that the Supreme Court operates as an extension of the Jubilee House, calling such accusations baseless and uninformed.Atta-Akyea argued that individuals making these allegations demonstrate a lack of understanding of legal principles and the judiciary's crucial role in a democratic system.

0

His comments follow the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Speaker Alban Bagbin’s declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacant, a ruling that has drawn criticism and accusations of executive influence on the judiciary.Speaking in an interview with Channel One TV on Saturday, November 16, Atta-Akyea staunchly defended the integrity of the Supreme Court.

1

He described the justices as highly esteemed and impartial legal experts committed to upholding the rule of law. He further stressed that their rulings are based on sound legal reasoning rather than any form of political allegiance.“Those who claim that the Supreme Court is merely an extension of the Jubilee House and will rubber-stamp what we want are mistaken," he stated.

2

He noted that the recent case showcased the Court’s independence, pointing out that two judges, Justice Lovelace Johnson and Justice Amadu Tanko, had dissented, demonstrating the diversity of thought within the judiciary. “The Supreme Court is a forum of respectable and capable individuals," he added.

Atta-Akyea further argued that portraying the Supreme Court as an extension of the executive

3

branch was both misleading and harmful.He criticised such views as a misunderstanding of the rule of law and warned that they undermined the constitution and the judiciary's independence.The debate stems from the Supreme Court's November 12 ruling, which overturned Speaker Alban Bagbin's decision to declare four parliamentary seats vacant.

4

This decision followed a challenge by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, who contended that the Speaker’s declaration was legally unfounded.In their detailed judgement delivered on November 14, the five justices who supported Afenyo-Markin clarified that a parliamentary seat could only be deemed vacant if an MP officially changes political parties while remaining in Parliament.

5

Conversely, the two dissenting justices argued that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction over the matter, reflecting a notable divergence in legal interpretation regarding the Court’s authority.

6