The Supreme Court has released a detailed explanation for its decision to uphold the suit filed by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, providing clarity on when a Member of Parliament (MP) is considered to have vacated their seat.
The court ruled that an MP’s seat is vacated only if they change their political affiliation while serving within the same parliamentary term. Specifically, Articles 97(1)(g) and (h) of the Constitution apply solely to the current term and do not extend to future terms or elections in which an MP contests under a different political identity.
The judgment explained that an MP’s seat is deemed vacated if they switch parties within Parliament and seek to continue serving as a member of their new party. “The only plausible conclusion from a holistic reading of Article 97(1)(g) and (h) is that an MP’s seat shall be vacated upon leaving their elected party to join another party in Parliament while remaining in that Parliament as a member of the new party,” the court stated.
The court added that the same rule applies to an independent MP who joins a political party—they must vacate the seat initially held as an independent.
Furthermore, the ruling emphasized that the constitutional provisions should be interpreted within the scope of the current parliamentary term and are not intended to cover future electoral intentions or candidacies. “Article 97(1)(g) and (h) must be understood in their context, without any implication that they apply to future electoral aspirations, such as an MP running under a different party in the next election cycle,” the court clarified.