Attorney General sued over Abodakpi

The issue of whether or not the laws of the republic permit a convicted Member of Parliament to keep his seat until the determination of an appeal of his conviction has landed the Attorney General in the Supreme Court with Parliament and the Rules of Court Committee as affected parties.

In a writ invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which was filed by J. Opoku Agyei of Primus Law Company, an Accra-based legal practitioner, Mr. Kwasi Danso-Acheampong is asking for the following reliefs:

1. A declaration that Section 10 of the REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE LAW 1992 P.N.D.C. L 284 and RULE 41 SUB-RULES (1)(e) and (3) of the SUPREME COURT RULES 1996, C.I. 16, in so far as the sub-rules purport to suspend the vacation of seat by an imprisoned Member of Parliament pending an appeal are inconsistent with ARTICLE 97 CLAUSE 1 SUB-CLAUSE (E) and ARTICLE 94 SUB-CLAUSE (e) 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 required by Articles 97 and 94 read together.

In a Statement of Claim accompanying the writ, the Plaintiff maintains that the Fast Track High Court, Accra presided over by His Lordship Justice F.T. Faakye, a justice of the Court of Appeal sitting as an additional High Court Judge convicted Mr. Daniel Kwasi Abodakpi, a Member of Parliament for the Keta Constituency for defrauding by false pretences and willfully causing financial loss of US $400,000.00 to the State and in consequence sentenced him to a term of ten (10) years imprisonment with hard labour.

"Having been convicted and sentenced by a court of competent jurisdiction, Plaintiff expected Mr. Abodakpi to vacate his parliamentary seat as voluntarily and mandatorily required by the express provisions of ARTICLES 97 CLAUSE (1) SUB-CLAUSE (e) and 94 CLAUSE (2) SUB-CLAUSE (e) of the 1992 Constitution read together," Mr. Danso-Acheampong states.

In a report carried by the Ghanaian Observer, Mr. Danso-Acheampong states further that "The Plaintiff having waited since the 5th day of February for the imprisoned member to vacate his seat or for the seat to be declared vacant, but that not to be, addressed a letter to the Honourable Speaker of Parliament to remind him "of the fact that Mr. Abodapki ceased to be a Member of Parliament on 5th February, 2007 the date he was convicted and sentenced to ten (10) years imprisonment."

Mr. Danso-Acheampong says the letter addressed to the Speaker of Parliament with a copy to the Ghana News Agency dated April, 2007 generated considerable public interest and discussion with divided opinion as to whether Mr. Abodakpi should vacate his seat or not, while appealing against his conviction and imprisonment.

He maintains that the substance of his case is that reading ARTICLES 97 CLAUSE (1) SUB-CLAUSE(e) and 94 CLAUSE (2) SUB-CLAUSE (E)together, a convicted and imprisoned Member of Parliament ceases to be a Member of Parliament or the seat he occupied before his imprisonment is declared vacant if he fails to vacate the seat voluntarily.

Me Danso-Acheampong points out that PNDCL 284 which was made on the 24th day of July, 1992 and notified in gazette on 7th August, 1992 has to be construed to bring it into conformity with the provisions of the 1992 Constitution that came into force on 7 January, 1993 as required by Article 11(6).

The Ghanaian Observer says its checks have revealed that the Attorney General, Speaker of Parliament and the Rules of Court Committee have all been duly served with the writ thus paving the way for what promises to be a landmark case on the interpretation of the 1992 Constitution.