[2008]DLSC17792 • November 5, 2008 • Supreme Court •
DANSO-ACHEAMPONG vs. ATTORNEY-GENERAL & ABODAKPI
The plaintiff initiated proceedings against the Attorney-General and Daniel Abodakpi challenging the constitutionality of section 10 of the Representation of the People Act, 1992 (PNDCL 284) and rules 411e and 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (CI 16). The plaintiff contended that these provisions unlawfully suspend the mandatory vacation of a parliamentary seat by a convicted and imprisoned Member of Parliament pending appeal, contrary to articles 97(1)(e) and 94(2)(e) of the 1992 Constitution. The plaintiff sought declarations that these statutory provisions are void and that conviction and imprisonment mandate immediate vacation of the parliamentary seat without suspension by appeal.
read moreJUDGMENT DR DATE-BAH JSC The plaintiff caused a writ of summons to be issued against the Attorney General on 26 June 2007 to invoke the original jurisdiction of this court for the following reliefs: "(1)A declaration that section 10 of the Representation of the People Act, 1992 (PNDCL 284), and rule 4l(l)(e) and (3) of the Supreme Court Rules 1996 (CI 16), in so far as the [said section 10 and rule 41(1)(e) and (3)] purport to suspend vacation of seat by an imprisoned Member of Parliament pending an appeal, are inconsistent with article 97(1)(e) and article 94(2)(e) of the 1992 Constitution read together and are therefore void. (2) A declaration that a Member of Parliament on being convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment by any court mandatorily vacates his or her seat. (3) A declaration that an appeal filed by a convicted and imprisoned Member of Parliament is not by itself a stay to suspend the vacation of seat by the imprisoned Member of Parliament as mandatorily....