The Supreme Court has dismissed a motion by FixTheCountry convener, Oliver Barker Vormawor which sought to quash the decision by the High Court after he challenged its jurisdiction to hear the case as well as the constitutionality of the treason felony charge against him.
The High Court presided over by Mary Ekue Yanzuh on May 27, 2024, dismissed the activist’s motion challenging its jurisdiction after applying to halt proceedings until it was determined by the apex court.
At the apex court on December 12, both Oliver and his counsel were present but there was no representation from the Attorney-General’s office.
Lead counsel for Barker Vormawor, Dr Justice Srem Sai prayed the court to grant his order of certiorari on the basis that Section 182 of Act 29 was inconsistent with Article 3 (3) of the 1992 constitution.
While Article 3, clause 3 of the 1992 Constitution states that any person who attempts to suspend, overthrow, or abrogate the Constitution by violent or unlawful means commits high treason punishable by death, Section 182 of Act 29 prescribes life imprisonment.
“If the plain meaning is adopted then our contention is that section 182 of Act 29 which also prohibits unlawful means is inconsistent with article 3(3).
While Article 33 prescribes the death penalty…Section 182 prescribes the same behaviour as life imprisonment. While the trial of a person under Article 3(3) is conducted by three superior court judges, the mode of trial described for section 182 is a single judge and a jury.
“Our contention is that two people engaging in the same unlawful behaviour may find themselves being charged under different laws,” Dr Srem Sai argued.
But the 5-member panel of justices chaired by Justice Henrietta Mensa Bonsu dismissed the application in a 4-1 majority decision.
Reacting to the decision of the apex court, Oliver Barker Vormawor lamented that there seem to be a great deal of artificial reasoning in cases involving him.
“I think that one of the biggest challenges we’ve continuously had in this line of cases involving me is that we are constantly seeing how a great deal of artificial reasoning and sophistication is applied anytime a matter involving me comes up.
“Not too long ago the Supreme Court held that the Speaker of Parliament who has under no constitutional obligation to refer a matter that comes before it to the Supreme Court decided that when an issue arises before Parliament which involves rival interpretations of the Supreme court, the matter should be forwarded to the apex court.
“In our case, we’ve challenged the constitutionality of the charges that have been pending before me… A high court refused even though it is under constitutional obligation to refer that issue to the Supreme Court.
“The Supreme Court decided to reverse its decision and decided that the High Court was right even though it has no jurisdiction to interpret the constitution,” Vormawor noted.
The trial will, therefore, proceed at the High Court following the decision by the Supreme Court.
