HER STATEMENT IN REGARDS TO NON REPRESENTATIONS OF THOSE CONSTITUENCIES IN MY LAYMAN POINT OF VIEW IS EXTREMELY CHILDISH,IF WE AS CITIZENS OF GHANA COULD MAKE A POINT OF THOSE CONSTITUENCIES OF SALL WERE LEFT FOR (4)) SOLID YEARS AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE FOUND THAT NORMAL ❓❓❓
@@desmondaidoo488 Defenders fo) The Sall case was sent to the Supreme court, the same supreme Court referred them to send the case to a High court. The High court intentionally sat on the case for 3years and just recently the High court threw the case out saying it does not have the jurisdiction to judge such case so they should go back to the Supreme Court for a judgement. 4years now the people of Sall have remained without a representation but the same supreme Court hypocritically sat on this case in less than a month.
It is simply ridiculous that the same political party cited one constitutional provision for one outcome and again cite the same constitutional provision for a contrary outcome. Let the SC embrass the judiciary. Early days of Gertrude's judicial reforms are messy!!!!!
My family, please forgive the sc judges. If Akko Addo could appoint my dear hawa koomsom and the likes minister for 8 years, only God knows who he has appointed to the supreme court. They are doing their best
It is interesting that the Supreme Court is so concerned about constituencies not being represented for just 3 months but not bothered about 4 years of denial of other constituents. Shame with the double standards in my view. God is surely the final judge. He will surely judge every works of men.
Frank Davies you are a political lawyer of npp and you not making sense. Frank Davies, so you are very happy when the people of volta region SALL doesn't have mp for 4 years the case is at the supreme Court and that's good for you. Lgbtq +++++++ sitting at the supreme Court for a year and that's also good too. These supreme Court justices must be very very careful of what they doing, and the day the wrath of Ghanaians will candle on them they can't escape it. Remember the 1981 31ST DECEMBER revolution
A simple question that can resolve the present controversy in Parliament in respect of the four vacation of parliamentary seats. Question: *When should a Member of Parliament vacate his seat. Is it during his present term in office or during his probable future term in office, should he win the future election?* Article 97 clause 1, paragraphs g and h of the constitution of Ghana. 1) A member of Parliament shall vacate his seat in parliament - (g) if he leaves the party of which he was a member at the time of his election to Parliament to join another party or seeks to remain in Parliament as an independent member; or (h) if he was elected a member of Parliament as an independent candidate and joins a political party. If it is argued that the member of parliament must not vacate his present seat but rather vacate a future seat if he probably wins a future election, then it would imply that, immediately he is declared a member of parliament in future, he must immediately vacate his seat, so that another election is organized for him to probably win again. This view would amount to causing other parliamentary candidates (including the political party candidates to contest the same elections twice) and to what end? If this view is upheld, it would also imply that a member of parliament who becomes the Speaker of Parliament, must not vacate his present seat in parliament but rather vacate a probable future seat in parliament. It would also imply that upon dissolution of parliament, members should vacate their probable future parliamentary seats. *Second follow-up question* In the context of this discussion, at which point, can it be conclusive that a member of parliament has either left his political party or joined a political party (if he was initially independent) ? *Answer to question two* The time of leaving the political party or joining one (if he was independent) occurs before the end of the present term of parliament. The time of filing for candidacy with the Electoral Commission is therefore reasonably conclusive as the time that he has left his political party or joined a political party (if he was independent). *Final question* Should a political party be the only one to report that a person is no longer a member of the party? *Answer* In this context, any citizen can point out or report a wrongdoing *Summary* Article 97 is clear that the parliamentary seat to be vacated is the present seat and not a future probabilistic seat. The time of filing for candidacy with the Electoral Commission contrary to his "present status in parliament" is therefore the reasonable conclusive evidence that a member of parliament has either left his party, or joined a party (if he was independent); *and must therefore vacate his seat with immediate effect*.,
lol, He hasn't challenged what he rejected. What he challenged was the ruling for stay of execution, which is different from what he rejected for wrong service on him
It seems the supreme court denied the 4 MPs the right or freedom of association...supposed the court to hv invited the 4 MPs to hear thier position on the matter b4 giving verdit or judgement😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
That's absolute nonsense, to say the processes are not important meanwhile it's the same NPP also talking about processes with which the seats have been declared vacant
TV3 de3 daabi da. Yoy call two leading member of political parties, then you call Tsatsu who is and ndc card bearing member as what a judge of the two? Aahhh
You go explain taya 🤣. I think we should just translate the constitution in our local dialects because as it stand now even the so called scholars are having problems with with English
Was the SC 2016 election ruling that favoured NDC political? When it favours you, it's not political but when it goes against you, then, its political. As NDC chairman Asiedu Nketiah puts it, "Any idiot can go to court". You've to support your case with facts and evidence to get a favourable vedict, period.
You can disagree with speaker but he rule on constitution of 1992 and Npp said they won't agree to be minority what else you want speaker to do.. do you mean the Npp are above the law
HER STATEMENT IN REGARDS TO NON REPRESENTATIONS OF THOSE CONSTITUENCIES IN MY LAYMAN POINT OF VIEW IS EXTREMELY CHILDISH,IF WE AS CITIZENS OF GHANA COULD MAKE A POINT OF THOSE CONSTITUENCIES OF SALL WERE LEFT FOR (4)) SOLID YEARS AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE FOUND THAT NORMAL ❓❓❓
The court doesn't just makes cases for them but an individual need to send the matter to court simple.
You guys always display your ignorance about the laws in this country and the constitution as a whole.
@@patrickasante6991U seem blatant ignorant
@@desmondaidoo488
Defenders fo)
The Sall case was sent to the Supreme court, the same supreme Court referred them to send the case to a High court.
The High court intentionally sat on the case for 3years and just recently the High court threw the case out saying it does not have the jurisdiction to judge such case so they should go back to the Supreme Court for a judgement.
4years now the people of Sall have remained without a representation but the same supreme Court hypocritically sat on this case in less than a month.
What do you know about the laws and constitution yourself? You people brag unnecessary too much @@patrickasante6991
It is simply ridiculous that the same political party cited one constitutional provision for one outcome and again cite the same constitutional provision for a contrary outcome.
Let the SC embrass the judiciary.
Early days of Gertrude's judicial reforms are messy!!!!!
SAL was denied representation for years. was the chief justice in thos country?
My family, please forgive the sc judges. If Akko Addo could appoint my dear hawa koomsom and the likes minister for 8 years, only God knows who he has appointed to the supreme court. They are doing their best
It is interesting that the Supreme Court is so concerned about constituencies not being represented for just 3 months but not bothered about 4 years of denial of other constituents. Shame with the double standards in my view. God is surely the final judge. He will surely judge every works of men.
What hurts is when you see respectable lawyers defending what happened in the SC.. It means they are empty Tonto all this while 😅
When the table turn.. we will call on you again. Mr. Frank davis
The current chief justice is a disaster. The worse in recent memory
Frank Davies you are a political lawyer of npp and you not making sense. Frank Davies, so you are very happy when the people of volta region SALL doesn't have mp for 4 years the case is at the supreme Court and that's good for you. Lgbtq +++++++ sitting at the supreme Court for a year and that's also good too.
These supreme Court justices must be very very careful of what they doing, and the day the wrath of Ghanaians will candle on them they can't escape it. Remember the 1981 31ST DECEMBER revolution
Why is the Lawyer wearing his legal apparel in the studio?
Interesting times ahead.
I like that part outside the frame work of the writs.Alevle Tsatsu Tsikata- AKPOSO KUBI TRADITIONAL AREA.
So ,what does you expect these two NDC Lawyers to say?.
A simple question that can resolve the present controversy in Parliament in respect of the four vacation of parliamentary seats.
Question:
*When should a Member of Parliament vacate his seat. Is it during his present term in office or during his probable future term in office, should he win the future election?*
Article 97 clause 1, paragraphs g and h of the constitution of Ghana.
1) A member of Parliament shall vacate his seat in parliament -
(g) if he leaves the party of which he was a member at the time of his election to Parliament to join another party or seeks to remain in Parliament as an independent member; or
(h) if he was elected a member of Parliament as an independent candidate and joins a political party.
If it is argued that the member of parliament must not vacate his present seat but rather vacate a future seat if he probably wins a future election, then it would imply that, immediately he is declared a member of parliament in future, he must immediately vacate his seat, so that another election is organized for him to probably win again.
This view would amount to causing other parliamentary candidates (including the political party candidates to contest the same elections twice) and to what end?
If this view is upheld, it would also imply that a member of parliament who becomes the Speaker of Parliament, must not vacate his present seat in parliament but rather vacate a probable future seat in parliament.
It would also imply that upon dissolution of parliament, members should vacate their probable future parliamentary seats.
*Second follow-up question*
In the context of this discussion, at which point, can it be conclusive that a member of parliament has either left his political party or joined a political party (if he was initially independent) ?
*Answer to question two*
The time of leaving the political party or joining one (if he was independent) occurs before the end of the present term of parliament.
The time of filing for candidacy with the Electoral Commission is therefore reasonably conclusive as the time that he has left his political party or joined a political party (if he was independent).
*Final question*
Should a political party be the only one to report that a person is no longer a member of the party?
*Answer*
In this context, any citizen can point out or report a wrongdoing
*Summary*
Article 97 is clear that the parliamentary seat to be vacated is the present seat and not a future probabilistic seat.
The time of filing for candidacy with the Electoral Commission contrary to his "present status in parliament" is therefore the reasonable conclusive evidence that a member of parliament has either left his party, or joined a party (if he was independent); *and must therefore vacate his seat with immediate effect*.,
They refuse to understand this simple English. Isn't it funny? Plain English oo
Whats the motive of this Coup d'etat by the Speaker and NDC?
Have you asked this question and tried to find answer?
How can you challenge something u have rejected
lol, He hasn't challenged what he rejected. What he challenged was the ruling for stay of execution, which is different from what he rejected for wrong service on him
It seems the supreme court denied the 4 MPs the right or freedom of association...supposed the court to hv invited the 4 MPs to hear thier position on the matter b4 giving verdit or judgement😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Simple, very simple, i think they can speak for themselves, we wud want to hear from them
Star boy Frank Davies
This host or presenter is terrible. Interjection after interjections after interjections
She might as well host the show alone
She just wants to hear herself speak. Atrocious and loud host
Did the CJ read her ruling or that of the panel which she chaired?
So the processes is the process so you had to force it on the speaker. Bad people
Yet the SC didn't follow it's own processes. When the dictator doesn't follow the rules
Why is Senior Loh in his full legal apparel on TV? What's this
Do you know where he was coming from
You don’t need to know where he is coming from. It’s just a matter of removing the bib. It’s only used in courts
Please kindly add 2020 court issues to Tsatsu's accolade
Frank Davies should stop smoking weed
This law it self is criminal cox I can’t think far 😂, I was getting along until tsatsu came in mentioning affidavit and ko😂
That's absolute nonsense, to say the processes are not important meanwhile it's the same NPP also talking about processes with which the seats have been declared vacant
I hate of listening to Akans presenter on English stations period!!
Whats your point?
From your name, I'm not surprised .
@onyameabasa which name?
@@KwameAmedzo @victorDjango-y7d
TV3 de3 daabi da. Yoy call two leading member of political parties, then you call Tsatsu who is and ndc card bearing member as what a judge of the two? Aahhh
Did you hear what Tsikata said?
What if ndc win are they going to throw away?
What Kinda Host Is This...Paraphrasing...?? Lawyers Like To Speak Using Their OWN WORDS...!!😂😂
Rubbish! Two NDC lawyers against one NPP lawyer! Absolute RUBBISH!!!
After seeing your surname I reserve my comment
It is Qualitative Or Quantitative....🤔
@@epignosisvisual8197 herh 🤣🤣
Bias journalism why call 2 NDC members against 1 NPP member?
Does that change the merit of the case being discussed?
The SC acted to avert the chaos that was confronting the action of the Speaker.
What chaos are you talking about?
You can ask that again@@MichaelArhin-sm6yq
Why should invite TT...wearing ndc lenses
Low IQ people
NDCfo)
You go explain taya 🤣. I think we should just translate the constitution in our local dialects because as it stand now even the so called scholars are having problems with with English
Was the SC 2016 election ruling that favoured NDC political? When it favours you, it's not political but when it goes against you, then, its political. As NDC chairman Asiedu Nketiah puts it, "Any idiot can go to court". You've to support your case with facts and evidence to get a favourable vedict, period.
Is Tsatsu saying that he was happy with the way the Speaker was moving Parliament?The speaker himself broke parliamentary rules.
Which one?
@@oxygenalfarabi6041he can’t answer you lol
You can disagree with speaker but he rule on constitution of 1992 and Npp said they won't agree to be minority what else you want speaker to do.. do you mean the Npp are above the law
Which parliamentary rules did the speaker breached?
@@MichaelArhin-sm6yq he doesn't have an answer Boss. Don't worry yourself
Speaker lacks emotional intelligence.
Whiles you lack wisdom
The speaker is more learned and intelligent than the CJ.
Stupid man. U call ur self a man with wisdom. Even u can’t lead ur own family
The president and the cj lacks common sense
U lack sense
Which court? The npp court or what.