Prerogative writs lie with the supreme court, a court of equity at that, and a writ of injunction is no exception.
More so the reliefs in the instant case does not suggest that the SC is being invoked to enforce the ruling of a high court
In my considered opinion Article 2(1),and 2(2) is at play here, anything done in violation of the constitution must fall for the simple reason of unconditionality It became ripe to make a case of unconstitutionality being perpetuated in violation of the constitution when the high court declared Mr Qayson”s attending to parliament as unlawful. The supreme court fundamentally has three functions
1 enforcement of the constitution
2. Interpretation of the constitution
3. Judicial review
So it is not improper when a constitutional (prerogative) action is filed in the supreme court to stop the violation of the constitution, which was first a violation of a court order.
The balance of convenience must be premised on legibility. Determination of elegibility has been dispensed under Article 99. The question: Is he representing the people of Assin North lawfully?,answer is no!, except the ndc lawyers want us to hold that a driver without a licence should continue the journey because the passengers reserve a right to arrive at their destination regardless of who is driving the car.
Now this is it, two things are happening in relation to the same person but the cause of action are different, The Constitution prohibit an unqualified person from attending to the business of parliament. The moment the high Court declared he was not qualified to be in parliament, his continuous attendance to parliament became a breech of the constitution, and you don’t need the procedure of an election petition to stop such violation, a constitutional action is very appropriate in this circumstance.
One can seek an enforcement of the constitution through perogative writs, essentially you don’t need a substantive matter pending before the supreme court to invoke their enforcement jurisdiction
Yes the argument on the other hand is that why didn’t the plaintiff file for contempt of Court, yes that is also opened to the plaintiff, but it won’t be an estoppel for instituting a constitutional action.
It is imperative to note that a breach of the orders of the supreme court is more grevious under Article 2(3) than a breach of the orders of the lower courts.
In the instant case the enforcement powers of the Supreme court 130 1(a) all matters relating to the enforcement or interpretation of this Constitution; emphasis on enforcement, was called into action when the cape coast high declared Mr Quayson as illegible to attend to parliament Therefore his continuously attending to the business of parliament meant a breach of the constitution.