By admin 
The Head of Chambers of Clinton Consultancy and political lawyer, Amanda Akuokor Clinton, has supported the decision of the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Bagbin, not to field parliamentary candidates whose results were annulled by the Supreme Court on Friday, December 27, 2024 to be eligible for swearing-in. as Members of Parliament on January 6, 2025.
According to the lawyer, the Speaker would be acting correctly by refusing to swear in the specific MPs as the court has requested to reconsider the issue. Therefore, Alban Bagbin must wait for the court’s ruling before appointing the elected candidates from the twelve outstanding constituencies.
She spoke on Joy Prime’s Prime Morning show about the outcome of the case, whether it would remain unresolved before January 6, 2025, and what the Constitution says.
“The Speaker is absolutely right when he says that he is not going to swear in those people because even the court has said that the matter needs to be reconsidered. So he will continue with the rest, but for those specific seats he will leave,” he said.
Although the Supreme Court’s decision to send the case back to the Supreme Court left the case in limbo regarding the fate of the chosen candidates, attorney Clinton urged the public to give the Supreme Court sufficient time to consider the issue thoroughly investigated in the interests of all citizens. .
Nevertheless, she is confident that the Supreme Court will expedite the process and decide in the public interest, especially since the Supreme Court has given the NDC a two-day ultimatum to file an opposition.
Nevertheless, if the final ruling is made after January 7, 2025, the Speaker will have to swear in the remaining MPs from the affected constituencies as the constitution requires, she said.
The Supreme Court annulled the re-collected results for the Okaikwei Central, Ablekuma North, Tema Central and Techiman South constituencies, citing irregularities in the Electoral Commission’s re-collection process.
The Apex Court held that the proceedings did not meet the required standards of transparency and fairness.
This ruling followed a legal challenge by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) against a Supreme Court directive on December 20 directing the Electoral Commission (EC) to re-compare results in nine disputed constituencies.
The Supreme Court ruling upheld the NDC’s position, stating that the reshuffle and subsequent declarations were improper and invalid.
Mr Bagbin noted in Parliament on Saturday that the Supreme Court’s decision strengthened his position on the issue.
INDEMNIFICATION: The views, comments, opinions, contributions and statements made by readers and contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Multimedia Group Limited.