The Supreme Court has ruled against Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin’s decision to declare four parliamentary seats vacant, siding with a challenge brought by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin.
In Tuesday’s decision, a seven-member panel led by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo ruled in a 5-2 majority favoring Afenyo-Markin’s position. Chief Justice Torkornoo announced that the court would provide a detailed explanation of its ruling at a later date.
The case centers on Speaker Bagbin’s interpretation of Article 97(1)(g) of the Ghanaian Constitution, which he used to justify declaring the seats vacant. This decision quickly sparked political and legal controversy, with Afenyo-Markin arguing that Bagbin had overstepped his constitutional authority by bypassing judicial review and denying the option of by-elections for the affected constituencies.
In an attempt to prevent the Speaker’s ruling from being implemented, the Supreme Court had previously issued an interim injunction. In response, Speaker Bagbin filed a counter-application, claiming that parliamentary decisions fall outside the jurisdiction of the judiciary, as they pertain to non-judicial actions. His counsel, Thaddeus Sory, argued that judicial intervention in parliamentary decisions threatens the constitutional separation of powers.
However, Chief Justice Torkornoo rejected Bagbin’s application, asserting the Court’s authority to intervene in parliamentary actions that may contravene constitutional provisions. She highlighted the potential disenfranchisement of constituents whose parliamentary representation could be lost without a clear path to by-elections, especially with the upcoming December 7 general elections.
In her directive, the Chief Justice instructed both parties to submit their respective claims within seven days to facilitate a timely resolution of the core issues.
This case not only raises questions about the separation of powers and constitutional authority but also underscores the ongoing tension between the judiciary’s duty to uphold constitutional principles and the autonomy of Parliament. As Ghana approaches the general elections, the implications of this ruling extend beyond legal interpretation, touching on the foundations of parliamentary authority and judicial oversight in the nation’s governance framework.
