Mr Tony Aidoo made an interesting and revealing point on News file by stating that the Supreme Court should have referred to the consultative assembly Hansard to appreciate the intent of the framers of the Constitution in putting this article in the Constitution and that should have guided them instead of trying to rewrite that article of the Constitution.
Mere fact that a provision in a party constitution indicates that a person has lost a seat doesn’t automatically translate to the constitution. The constitutional provision has to be properly triggered before an MP can lose a seat. Supremacy of constitution and no provision of party constitution can change that.
Nobody is basing this issue on a party constitution. The law is clear on this issue. If you come to parliament as an independent and go to join a political party, that member (SHALL) will vacate his/ her seat period. SHALL is a mandatory period. Only mischievous ones predent not to understand this provision.
Martin Kpeku is so wrong about allegiance. So he means my mere declaration of my future intent means my allegiance has been severed in the current Parliament. Remember the allegiance also has a shelf life of 4years for which the people who voted and party are aware. So how does it constitute a breach of trust or allegiance when i foretell my future intention. In any way, won't the people havevthe chance in the pool to determine whther i warrant another 4 years trust and allegiance to NPP. His argumentbis totally flawed
Martin Kpebu is totally wrong on the purposive approach of interpretation doesn’t say that. That is the literal approach. Trying to find issue with SC where there is none
His point is that this does not require the purposive approach to interpretation. Unfortunately this ruling by the SC is hasty and bereft of faultless logical reasoning.
@@amisco333And that is so wrong because the literal meaning of 97 is not clear and leads to ambiguity, that brought the issue thero SC. If there wasn't any ambiguity, why will even lawyers have different interpretation. Where is the clarity of 97. Even Speaker interpretation was proven wrong by them so where is the none ambiguity. Remember SC will not even entertain that a provision is ambiguous by mere disagreement between parties but have a preliminary defence mechanism to weigh whether the said disparity indeed warrants an interpretation.
For interpretation, there need not be even a proof of personal interest. The mere fact that a person is a citizen is enough to bring action under 2(1).
These NPP guys lack principles, so dishonest and self-serving. 😔
Assafuah is very mischievous.
Mr Tony Aidoo made an interesting and revealing point on News file by stating that the Supreme Court should have referred to the consultative assembly Hansard to appreciate the intent of the framers of the Constitution in putting this article in the Constitution and that should have guided them instead of trying to rewrite that article of the Constitution.
In effect the NPP has two people on the notice of polls
I Salute you, Sam George.
This means anytime an MP losses they can now pickup a form to contest as an independent candidate to oppose their own party 😂. Wow
Asaffuah is not reasoning, STOP bringing him to this show
Mere fact that a provision in a party constitution indicates that a person has lost a seat doesn’t automatically translate to the constitution. The constitutional provision has to be properly triggered before an MP can lose a seat. Supremacy of constitution and no provision of party constitution can change that.
Nobody is basing this issue on a party constitution. The law is clear on this issue. If you come to parliament as an independent and go to join a political party, that member (SHALL) will vacate his/ her seat period. SHALL is a mandatory period. Only mischievous ones predent not to understand this provision.
Martin Kpeku is so wrong about allegiance. So he means my mere declaration of my future intent means my allegiance has been severed in the current Parliament. Remember the allegiance also has a shelf life of 4years for which the people who voted and party are aware. So how does it constitute a breach of trust or allegiance when i foretell my future intention. In any way, won't the people havevthe chance in the pool to determine whther i warrant another 4 years trust and allegiance to NPP. His argumentbis totally flawed
Wonankasaa y3 se na 3nyaade😂 @Asafuah
Martin Kpebu is totally wrong on the purposive approach of interpretation doesn’t say that. That is the literal approach. Trying to find issue with SC where there is none
His point is that this does not require the purposive approach to interpretation. Unfortunately this ruling by the SC is hasty and bereft of faultless logical reasoning.
@@amisco333And that is so wrong because the literal meaning of 97 is not clear and leads to ambiguity, that brought the issue thero SC. If there wasn't any ambiguity, why will even lawyers have different interpretation. Where is the clarity of 97. Even Speaker interpretation was proven wrong by them so where is the none ambiguity. Remember SC will not even entertain that a provision is ambiguous by mere disagreement between parties but have a preliminary defence mechanism to weigh whether the said disparity indeed warrants an interpretation.
For interpretation, there need not be even a proof of personal interest. The mere fact that a person is a citizen is enough to bring action under 2(1).
Shut up if u don't have a contrary opinion