Supreme Court Declares Speaker’s Move to Vacate Four Parliamentary Seats Unconstitutional

In a high-stakes ruling, the Supreme Court of Ghana, by a 5-2 majority, has declared Speaker Alban Bagbin’s decision to vacate four parliamentary seats as unconstitutional.

Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo led the seven-member panel in this decision, addressing a contentious issue of judicial authority over parliamentary actions. While two judges raised questions regarding jurisdiction, the court ultimately backed the suit filed by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, who argued that the Speaker had exceeded his constitutional bounds.

Background on the Seat Vacancy Declaration

On October 17, 2024, Speaker Bagbin declared the seats of four MPs vacant, sparking controversy and a legal challenge. The Speaker’s action was based on Article 97(1)(g) of the Ghanaian Constitution, which relates to circumstances under which an MP can lose their seat.

The MPs affected—Peter Yaw Kwakye Ackah (Amenfi Central), Andrew Amoako Asiamah (Fomena), Kojo Asante (Suhum), and Cynthia Morrison (Agona West)—had announced plans to run as independent candidates in the December election, prompting the Speaker to declare their seats empty.

Majority Leader’s Challenge and Court Intervention

Following the Speaker’s declaration, Majority Leader Afenyo-Markin quickly took the matter to the Supreme Court, asserting that Bagbin’s decision bypassed necessary judicial oversight.

His challenge hinged on the interpretation that parliamentary seat vacancies could not be declared outside of specific constitutional grounds and required judicial review to ensure fairness.

In response, the Supreme Court issued a temporary injunction against the Speaker’s ruling, halting the enforcement of the seat vacancy until a final verdict could be reached. In turn, Speaker Bagbin filed a counter-motion, claiming the judiciary had no right to intervene in what he described as an internal parliamentary matter.

However, the court reaffirmed its role in reviewing parliamentary decisions with potential constitutional implications.

Judiciary-Executive Tension and Potential Election Impact

Throughout the case, Bagbin’s counsel, Thaddeus Sory, argued that the judiciary's intervention infringes upon the separation of powers, a fundamental constitutional principle.

He suggested that the court’s involvement in legislative affairs undermines parliamentary independence. Conversely, Chief Justice Torkornoo highlighted the judiciary’s duty to protect citizens from potential overreach, expressing concern over the risk of disenfranchising constituents without legal recourse or by-elections.

The ruling reaffirms that the Speaker does not have the authority to declare seats vacant without adhering to judicial procedures, a significant point as Ghana approaches its December 7 elections.

This outcome may influence not only the immediate political dynamics but also how parliamentary actions are constrained by judicial oversight.

Final Statements and Next Steps

The Chief Justice announced that full reasoning behind the court's decision would be made available on Wednesday, November 13, 2024. Both parties have been directed to submit final statements within seven days, ensuring that this legal matter is resolved swiftly, especially given its potential impact on Ghana’s election season.

This decision is a landmark case in Ghanaian law, underscoring the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional boundaries and the complex balance of power between government branches.