The Minority Caucus in Parliament, led by Deputy Minority Leader Patricia Appiagyei, has strongly criticised what it describes as a “dangerous, unconstitutional and unprecedented” attempt to declare the Panday parliamentary seat vacant despite an active appeal before the Court of Appeal.

Addressing the press in Parliament, the Minority said the notification sent to the Electoral Commission (EC) regarding the Panday constituency amounts to an overreach of parliamentary authority, an erosion of judicial independence and a direct disenfranchisement of the people of Panday and their elected representative, Hon. Martin Nyendam.

According to the caucus, Parliament’s action violates Article 99(1)(e) of the Constitution, which requires either:

- A final judicial determination after all appeals;

- A specific order by the Supreme Court; or

- A formal resignation by the Member of Parliament

before a seat can be legitimately declared vacant.

The Minority argued that none of these conditions has been met in the Panday case.

The caucus drew a sharp comparison with the James Gyakye Quayson case, insisting that those citing it to justify the current move are deliberately misrepresenting the facts.

They stressed:

- In the Quayson matter, Parliament acted only after the Supreme Court issued clear and final orders directing the Electoral Commission and Parliament.

- In contrast, the Panday case involves only a High Court decision currently under appeal—with no injunction, no Supreme Court order, and no finality.

“It is misleading and constitutionally reckless,” the Minority said, “to equate a High Court ruling under appeal with a Supreme Court’s final directive.”

The caucus described the move as a direct assault on the democratic rights of the 63,734 voters of Panday, saying the House cannot rely on a “first-instance court ruling” to override the rights of citizens or pre-empt the outcome of the appeal process.

They cautioned that allowing a parliamentary majority to unseat an elected MP immediately after a High Court ruling sets a dangerous precedent, effectively rendering the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court irrelevant in election disputes.

“The right to appeal is not a formality; it is part of the constitutional right to fair hearing,” they said.

“A High Court decision is not the final word. Treating it as such undermines judicial hierarchy and constitutional safeguards.”

The Minority Caucus declared that Parliament has four constitutional duties in this matter:

- Acknowledge that the matter is not finally determined until the appellate courts finish their work.

- Respect long-standing parliamentary precedent, which has always required final appellate outcomes before taking action on disputed seats.

- Avoid violating separation of powers, disrespecting the courts, or disenfranchising voters.

- Immediately withdraw the premature notice to the Electoral Commission.

Concluding the statement, Deputy Minority Leader Patricia Appiagyei urged the Speaker and leadership of the House to uphold constitutional integrity and avoid setting a precedent that could “shatter democratic norms and undermine public confidence in parliamentary processes.”

“Let history record,” the caucus declared, “that in this moment, Parliament chose the Constitution. The people of Panday are watching. Ghana is watching. History is watching.”