Supreme Court dismisses Abdulai’s review application on Voting Rights of Deputy Speakers

Supreme Court dismisses Abdulai’s review application on voting rights of Deputy Speakers

Is allowance instantly strangers applauded

A nine-member review panel of the Supreme Court has dismissed the review application by lecturer and private legal practitioner, Justice Abdulai relating to the Voting Rights of Deputy Speakers.

On March 9, 2022, a seven-member panel presided over by Justice Jones Dotse unanimously declared that the two Deputy Speakers of Parliament are members of Parliament thus can be counted as present for the purposes of making decisions in Parliament while presiding, thereby dismissing the application by Justice Abdulai, which sought the constitutionality of the same.

However, on April 9, 2022, the legal practitioner filed an application, seeking a review of the said judgment arguing that the decision of the Ordinary Bench is per in curium, and constitutes exceptional circumstances that resulted in the miscarriage of Justice thus praying the Supreme court to vary the same. 

When the case was called today, April 26, 2022, the review panel presided over by Justice Jones Dotse expressed displeasure about the procedure adopted by Mr. Abdulai in his application. 

A member of the panel, Justice Nene Amegatcher, quizzed the applicant: “have you considered the scope of the interpretation Act? You indicated in your review application that the ordinary Bench did not consider the interpretation Act?”

Additionally, he noted: “the Supreme Court is not supposed to consider the interpretation Act when interpreting the Constitution, which is sui generis.”

On her part, the Deputy Attorney-General, Diana Asonaba Dapaah, told the Court that the applicant has failed to show exceptional circumstances which have resulted in the miscarriage of justice and described the application as unmeritorious and an abuse of the Court's processes. 

It was at this point, that Justice Nene Amegatcher expressed his misgiving about the applicant's prior attitude of “hoping” from one media house to another, even as the review application was pending. 


In his ruling, Justice Jones Dotse considered two main issues; the procedure of the application and the Deputy AG's submission. 

He noted that the application falls short of the established procedures and hence dismissed same accordingly.