The Member of Parliament for the Old Tafo constituency, Vincent Ekow Assafuah, faced off with lawyer Martin Kpebu on a live TV program regarding the Supreme Court's ruling to stay the Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin's decision to vacate four seats in Parliament.

The two, along with other panelists on TV3’s "The Key Point" on Saturday, October 19, 2024, discussed the latest developments in the ruling regarding the Majority and Minority cases.

Speaking on the development, lawyer Kpebu stated that the Supreme Court should have made significant efforts to serve the Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin before ruling on the case presented by Majority Leader Alexander Kwamina Afenyo-Markin.

According to lawyer Kpebu, all available avenues for service should have been exhausted by the courts if they were unable to serve the Speaker before granting the ex-parte application.

However, Vincent Assafuah argued that the Speaker made it impossible for the courts to serve him. He explained that an existing conclave between the Speaker and the Chief Justice stipulates that MPs and the Speaker can only be served on Mondays.

Assafuah added that efforts to serve the Speaker proved futile.

"On the day, the Speaker was giving the ruling, he gave an account of why he has refused the service. The Speaker of Parliament in his ruling, admitted that there had been attempted service on him but because in his estimation he had a conclave with the Chief Justice that service on Member of Parliament and Speaker of Parliament cannot be served on any other day aside Monday. For that reason, the Speaker had rejected service.

“It was the Speaker's allegation that there was a conclave between him and the Chief Justice but in the judgement from the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice and other judges indicated that they have taken notice of the allegation by the Speaker that MPs have to be served on Monday.

“I just read the rules of court as per Article 157 that it does not lie within the might of the Speaker of Parliament or a supposed conclave between him and the Chief Justice to amend C147. It doesn't lie in his might to decide that and that is where the urgency of the matter we took to court lie. This is because we could not serve him on Friday,” he said.

His explanation did not sit well with lawyer Kpebu, who maintained his earlier stance that further attempts should have been made before the ruling was issued.

On Friday, October 18, 2024, the Supreme Court stayed the ruling of Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin regarding the vacation of four seats after hearing an application filed by the NPP MPs.

Read excerpts of their arguments below:

Kpebu: When you don't find him, you make another application. You file what we call application for substituted service. What are you talking about? Assafuah, I taught you law and you are now going to re-teach me. You were my student and you are now going to re-teach me. If I were that bad, I'm not sure you'd have passed.

Assafuah: I'm not saying you were bad. I recognize that you taught me but my point is that you didn't follow the sequence in Parliament. If you followed the sequence, you'd have known that even substituted service wouldn't have helped the course of the majority in this circumstance.

Kpebu: Are you aware that what Afenyo-Markin sought to serve the first time is different from what was filed yesterday? This one that the Supreme Court sat on was filed on the same yesterday. It wasn't signed in the morning. My point is that because it's different in nature from the first one they sought to serve, the court should have given an opportunity.

Assafuah: Mr Martin Kpebu, my lecturer that I am so much grateful to, yesterday was Friday and the Speaker of Parliament had already indicated that if it's not Monday, he's not taking any service.

Kpebu: Assafuah, you haven't practiced much that is why you are doing that. You are an officer of the court, don't do that. The way it goes is that once the earlier one was different from the application yesterday, steps should have been made to serve the Speaker. From what the Speaker is saying, the Chief Justice agreed and there is a directive.

Assafuah: Mr Martin Kpebu, you think that the Speaker of Parliament can do so and usurp the powers of Parliament and provisions of the constitutions?

Kpebu: If it was agreed between them, why not? Aren't there practice directions?

Assafuah: You are saying that such arrangements should surpass constitutional provisions?

Kpebu: Do you know what went into the arrangements? If the Chief Justice agreed, do you know what went into it?

Assafuah: The justices are not bigger than the provisions in our constitution. It doesn't matter what was agreed in a conclave. Article 1 tells you the Constitution is supreme.

MAG/EK