The Supreme Court of Ghana is set to deliver a landmark judgment on Tuesday, November 12, 2024, regarding Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin’s decision to declare four parliamentary seats vacant—a move that has sparked intense debate across the political landscape. Initially scheduled for Monday, November 11, 2024, the ruling was postponed to allow for the presence of Speaker Bagbin’s legal team, who were absent on the original date. Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo, presiding over the case, confirmed the rescheduling and stated, “The judgment in this matter will be delivered tomorrow, November 12, 2024.” The decision will clarify the constitutional boundaries of the Speaker’s powers regarding parliamentary seats, a matter that has drawn considerable attention and revived discussions on constitutional reforms.
The case was filed by Alexander Afenyo-Markin, leader of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) parliamentary caucus, in response to Speaker Bagbin’s decision to declare the four seats vacant. Bagbin’s declaration, made on October 17, 2024, was based on alleged violations of constitutional requirements by the Members of Parliament in question, although the exact nature of these violations has not been fully disclosed. Citing his interpretation of the constitution, Bagbin asserted that the MPs’ actions—or lack thereof—warranted the vacating of their seats, a decision he claimed was within his rights as Speaker of Parliament. However, the declaration did not go uncontested, as Afenyo-Markin swiftly filed an ex parte motion with the Supreme Court, seeking to have the Speaker’s decision overturned.
The Speaker’s declaration and the subsequent legal battle have ignited renewed debate within Ghana about the role and reach of parliamentary authority. At the center of this controversy is Bagbin’s interpretation of constitutional provisions that guide the declaration of vacant seats in Parliament, as well as the specific standing orders of the House regarding how and when such a declaration may be made. The constitutional ambiguity in this area has led to polarized views among political leaders and constitutional experts, with some arguing that Bagbin overstepped his bounds and others supporting his authority to interpret the constitution in the best interest of parliamentary integrity.
Following Afenyo-Markin’s initial motion, the Supreme Court issued a stay of execution on Bagbin’s declaration, effectively pausing the Speaker’s decision until the court could reach a final judgment on the matter. The stay temporarily protects the seats of the MPs involved, allowing them to retain their positions until the legal proceedings conclude. In reaction to the court’s intervention, Bagbin, represented by his lawyer, Thaddeus Sory, filed a counter-motion at the Supreme Court, requesting that the stay of execution be lifted. Bagbin argued that his decision was an administrative one rather than a judicial action, and therefore outside the purview of the court’s authority to suspend or overturn.
Bagbin’s legal team maintained that the Supreme Court’s involvement was an overreach and that the court misapplied legal principles by interfering in a non-judicial decision. They further argued that the stay set a concerning precedent, potentially diminishing the Speaker’s independent authority in managing parliamentary affairs. In their response, Afenyo-Markin’s team countered that the Speaker’s decision to declare seats vacant did, in fact, warrant judicial scrutiny, as it involved the interpretation and application of constitutional law. The opposing legal perspectives in this case have underscored the need for greater clarity within the constitution and, according to some experts, may prompt calls for specific amendments.
On Wednesday, October 30, the Supreme Court instructed Speaker Bagbin to file additional documentation and processes by November 11. On the same day, the court dismissed Bagbin’s application to overturn the stay of execution, reinforcing its initial order to halt the implementation of the Speaker’s ruling until a final decision is reached. The court’s directive highlights the judiciary’s commitment to thoroughly examine the legal basis of Bagbin’s declaration before any irreversible actions are taken.
The Supreme Court’s impending decision has far-reaching implications. If the court rules in favor of Bagbin, it could solidify the Speaker’s authority over certain administrative decisions within Parliament, including the power to declare seats vacant. Such a ruling might bolster the Speaker’s role in ensuring constitutional compliance among MPs but could also raise concerns about concentrated power within the Speaker’s office. Conversely, if the court rules in favor of Afenyo-Markin and invalidates Bagbin’s declaration, it could establish a precedent that limits the Speaker’s authority, particularly when interpreting constitutional mandates regarding parliamentary seats. This could signal a shift toward greater judicial oversight of parliamentary decisions and might trigger further discussions about constitutional reforms to clarify the powers of parliamentary leaders.
As Ghana awaits the court’s decision, the case has amplified discussions about parliamentary accountability, the separation of powers, and the need to revisit constitutional provisions that govern the structure and functioning of government institutions.
