The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction or authority to stay a decision or pronouncements made by another arms of government.
That can only be done in the courts system.
They should have waited and let someone pickup the matter at the High Court that has the jurisdiction over who is a member of parliament or not (Article 99(1),
then someone can now rush to the Supreme Court and ask of the stay of proceedings by application of Article 130.
Also, the matter of jurisdiction asked by the lawyers of the Speaker, that the supreme courts has no jurisdiction yet to listen the matter before them, was not addressed properly by Her Ladyship CJ.
They are right to make reference to Article 130 (2) as a general provision in the constitution that allowed them but they erred with no regards to Article 99(1), (2) and Article 280 which are specific provisions that overrides the general jurisdiction provision for the Supreme Court in 130(2).
When she argued that, the Supreme Court is final sayer in all things with respect to justice system, then why not everyone heading to the Supreme Court with every of our legal matters?
They overstepped their jurisdiction (Judicial Deference I call it).
Thinking Aloud
Teddy-Blay Writes