The Supreme Court has scheduled Tuesday, November 12, 2024, as the date for its final ruling of Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin’s declaration of four parliamentary seats vacant.
This ruling will mark a critical moment in Ghana’s legal landscape as it seeks to clarify the limits of parliamentary authority and the role of judicial oversight in matters concerning the status of the four Members of Parliament concerned.
This case was brought by Alexander Afenyo-Markin, the leader of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) parliamentary caucus, who questioned Speaker Bagbin’s decision to unilaterally declare the four seats vacant without consulting the judiciary or initiating by-elections. According to Afenyo-Markin, the Speaker’s declaration not only bypassed due judicial process but also risked disenfranchising the constituents represented by the four MPs.
The Speaker’s legal representation, Thaddeus Sory was absent in court to file his response.
During the previous hearing, Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame challenged the Speaker’s continued legal representation by Sory, citing procedural issues regarding approval from the Public Procurement Authority. This unusual twist added complexity to an already charged legal debate, as the Attorney-General argued that the proper legal procedures had not been followed in securing Sory’s services for the case.
The genesis of this case lies in Speaker Bagbin’s interpretation of the 1992 Constitution. On October 17, 2024, he declared the seats of four MPs; Cynthia Morrison (Agona West), Kwadjo Asante (Suhum), Andrew Asiamah (Fomena), and Peter Kwakye Ackah (Amenfi Central) vacant.
Bagbin justified his decision by arguing that these MPs, by filing to contest the December 7 elections as candidates for political parties different from those they currently represent, had violated constitutional requirements that he believed warranted their removal from office.
Speaker Bagbin’s decision sparked heated debate and divided opinions. He argued that his interpretation of the Constitution allowed him, as Speaker, to maintain order and uphold the integrity of Parliament by ensuring that MPs adhere to the political commitments they made when elected. Bagbin viewed this as a necessary action to preserve the sanctity of Parliament and its role in representing the people of Ghana.
Afenyo-Markin, however, strongly disagreed with this interpretation, maintaining that Bagbin overstepped his constitutional authority. According to Afenyo-Markin, the decision to vacate an MP’s seat should involve the judiciary, as only the courts possess the power to interpret the Constitution in such matters.
He contended that Bagbin’s unilateral declaration not only disregarded judicial oversight but also ignored the fundamental rights of the constituents, whose representation in Parliament would be abruptly cut off without due process. Afenyo-Markin argued that the Speaker’s actions undermined the principle of fair representation by failing to consult a higher authority in this constitutional interpretation.
