Attorney-General says Parliament can proceed with approving ministers while case before Supreme Court
Godfred Dame, the Attorney-General, has stated that Parliament can proceed with the approval processes for the President’s ministerial and deputy ministerial nominations.
He argued that there was no risk of undermining the authority of the Supreme Court in determining the substance and essence of the suit filed by Mr Rockson-Nelson Etsa Dafeamekpor (Plaintiff) if Parliament continued the nomination approval processes.
The AG noted this in an official statement to Parliament regarding the House’s inability to “continue to consider the nominations of the President given the pendency of what you stated as an injunction motion on notice seeking to restrain the Speaker from proceeding with the vetting and approval.”
Parliament on Tuesday suspended the consideration of the nomination of Ministers and Deputy Ministers of State by the President, following an interlocutory injunction filed at the Supreme Court by Mr Dafeamekpor.
According to the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, the injunction had made it impossible for Parliament to vet and approve the new ministers.
But Mr Dame said the action filed by Mr Dafeamekpor was a bare writ of summons.
He said no statement of the case in support of the writ had been filed as mandated by the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C. I. 16).
Also, the suit was not properly constituted and by Rule 46(3) of C.L 16, and such an action would be struck out where a statement of the case in support of the plaintiff’s writ was not filed within 14 days.
Mr Dame said the plaintiff had not filed an application for interlocutory injunction “seeking to restrain the Speaker from proceeding with the setting and approval of the names of the persons submitted by the President, or indeed, any other interlocutory relief.”
Thus, there was nothing before the Supreme Court that may limit Parliament’s ability to approve ministerial and deputy ministerial nominees presented to the House by the President in conformity with Articles 78(1) and 79(1) of the Constitution.
He said a search conducted at the Registry of the Supreme Court on Thursday March 21, 2024 indicated that whilst it was true that a relief stated on the writ filed on March 18, 2024 referred to suit, purports to be an “an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Speaker of Parliament from proceeding with the vetting and approval of the names of the persons submitted by the President to Parliament, but it was not an application for interlocutory injunction.
The AG said every application for interlocutory relief in any of the Superior Courts, as was written, must be by a motion specifically filed and praying for the desired relief.
Mr Dame said that the simple mention on a writ of summons for interlocutory relief was insignificant and had no effect.
He said that it does not constitute a pending motion for such relief, and no one is compelled to take notice of it.
Mr Dame stated that the substance of Mr Dafeamekpor’s suit is a challenge to the President’s authority to relieve Ministers serving in his cabinet of their posts and reassign them to other Ministries.
“It has no bearing on the approval of persons newly nominated by the President as Ministers and Deputy Ministers and duly presented to Parliament for approval by articles 78(1) and 79(1) of the Constitution,” he added.
He stated that Articles 78(1) and 79(1) of the Constitution do not preclude Parliament from proceeding with the approval processes for ministerial and deputy ministerial nominees rightfully presented by the President.
Source: GNA