The Supreme Court (SC) has shown the Member of Parliament for South Dayi constituency in the Volta region, Rockson-Nelson Etse Kwami Dafeamekpor the red card, after his interlocutory application to restrain Parliament from approving newly appointed ministers failed abysmally.
The lawmaker was thrown out of the apex court, presided over by a five-member panel yesterday.
According to the decision read by the president of the bench, Chief Justice (CJ) Gertrude Torkornoo, the application lacks merit, it is frivolous and abuse of the court processes.
The other judges are Justice Mariama Owusu, Justice Amadu Tanko and Justice Yaw Darko Asare.
After dismissing the application, Godfred Yeboah Dame, the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, demanded that a cost be awarded against the applicant for failing to appear before the court, particularly when he and his counsel, Nii Kpapoe Samona Addo, allegedly refused service of the hearing notice.
This was after the court was told that Mr Addo’s clerk indicated to the bailiff that she had been instructed not accept any processes in respect of the case.
However, the bailiff left the hearing notice on her clerk’s desk, indicating that service had been effected.
The court could not believe that a counsel who initiated an action could refuse any process in that regard.
Justice Tanko suggested that the lawyer was called upon to respond to what his clerk had allegedly told the bailiff before any action is taken.
Meanwhile, this is the very application that the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, used as a caveat to put the approval of the new ministerial appointees on hold.
Background
The lawmaker filed application on March 18, 2024 contending that a declaration of any Ministerial appointment, which has not been subject to prior parliamentary approval is a direct violation of Article 78(1) of the 1992 Constitution.
The said Article 78(1) states that, “a Minister of State shall be appointed by the President with the prior approval of Parliament.”
It was the argument of the plaintiff that failure of the President to refer some of his re-assigned Ministers to Parliament violates provisions of the 1992 Constitution.
The following are the reliefs he was praying the court to grant him;
*An order directing the President of the Republic of Ghana to submit to Parliament for approval, the names of the Ministers of State and the Deputy Minister of State whose appointments were revoked or terminated on the 14th of February, 2024 and who were subsequently supposedly re-assigned to other Ministerial and Deputy Ministerial offices for purposes of appointment as Ministers of State and Deputy Ministers of State.
*An order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Speaker of Parliament, the 1st Defendant herein, from proceeding with the vetting and approval of the names of the nominees of the President submitted to Parliament until the requirement that a Minister of State shall be appointed by the President with the prior approval of Parliament is satisfied in respect to the Ministers of State and the Deputy Minister of State whose appointments were revoked on the 14th of February, 2024 have been re-assigned new Ministerial and Deputy Ministerial offices.
*An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Speaker of Parliament, 1st Defendant herein, from proceeding with the vetting and approval of the names of the nominees of the President submitted to Parliament until the requirement that a Minister of State shall be appointed by the President with the prior approval of Parliament, satisfied in respect to the Ministers of State and the Deputy Ministers of State whose appointments were revoked on the 14th of February, 2024 and have been re-assigned new Ministerial and Deputy Ministerial offices.”
