The Supreme Court of Ghana has issued a detailed explanation of its recent decision to overturn Speaker Alban Bagbin’s declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacant, a ruling that has stirred significant political tension in Parliament. Delivered on November 12, 2024, the court’s judgment saw a 5-2 majority in favor of a suit filed by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin. The two dissenting justices argued that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction over the matter, a point that reflects the complexity of this constitutional issue.
Afenyo-Markin's suit arose after Speaker Bagbin’s ruling, which had effectively shifted the balance of power in Parliament by recognizing the National Democratic Congress (NDC) as the majority party. In response, Members of Parliament from the New Patriotic Party (NPP) boycotted parliamentary sessions, leading to a legislative stalemate. The Supreme Court’s ruling now re-establishes the NPP as the majority party, pending further action from Parliament to officially revert the NDC to its original minority status.
The ruling underscores the constitutional provisions governing the conditions under which an MP’s seat may be declared vacant, specifically those related to changes in political allegiance. The court’s decision reaffirms that only changes in party affiliation within the same parliamentary term can trigger a vacancy. This interpretation aims to uphold party stability within the term and prevent shifts in parliamentary composition from creating unnecessary disruptions.
The court’s ruling also serves as a reminder that the Speaker’s authority to declare seats vacant must align with established constitutional guidelines, as the decision reflects a commitment to maintaining a balanced power structure within the government’s three branches. According to the court, any such declarations must respect the boundaries of judicial review, especially in cases that influence parliamentary composition and party representation.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, there is an expectation for Parliament to reconvene and address the implications of the ruling, which will include restoring the NDC MPs to their previous minority standing. This development reinforces the judiciary’s role in interpreting the Constitution’s intent concerning parliamentary membership and party alignment. By ruling against Speaker Bagbin’s declaration, the court underscores the checks and balances essential for maintaining democratic integrity.
The Supreme Court’s explanation has brought renewed focus to constitutional interpretation and the limits of legislative power, marking a significant precedent in Ghana’s political landscape. The decision, while resolving immediate conflicts in Parliament, may also prompt future discussions on clarifying parliamentary rules to ensure stability.
blogpay
Total Comments: 0