The Supreme Court of Ghana has dismissed an application by the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, which sought to overturn an earlier ruling that paused his declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacant.
This decision is the latest development in a legal battle involving the Speaker’s authority and the judicial intervention in parliamentary decisions.
Speaker Bagbin filed the application in an attempt to overturn the Supreme Court’s initial decision that had temporarily restrained him from enforcing his ruling on the four seats.
The application also sought an order to nullify the writ filed by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, which requested the court to prevent Bagbin from making further rulings on the contested seats.
In the application, presented to the Supreme Court by Bagbin’s lawyer, Thaddeus Sory, the Speaker argued that the court overstepped its bounds by halting a parliamentary decision that was beyond the court’s authority to review.
Bagbin’s motion argued that as the Speaker’s ruling was not a judicial decision, it should not be subject to a stay of execution typically applied to court judgments.
The Speaker’s motion stated: “In terms of orders staying execution of rulings, the Supreme Court’s powers, under the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana and statute, to stay execution of rulings are limited to rulings of itself and of courts lower in the judicial hierarchy but do not extend to a ruling of the Speaker of Parliament who is not part of the judicial hierarchy.”
Bagbin’s filing further emphasized that the Speaker’s rulings, as head of a separate arm of government, do not fall within the judicial hierarchy and thus should not be subjected to stays of execution by the court. The Speaker asserted that the court’s intervention in a non-judicial ruling threatened the separation of powers outlined in Ghana’s Constitution.
However, in her ruling, the Chief Justice explained, “Given the irreparable harm that could be caused to the constituencies—comprising hundreds of thousands of Ghanaians—who would be left without MPs and without the possibility of by-elections, as well as the irreversible impact on MPs potentially losing their seats just weeks before the December 7 election, it is necessary for this court to address this dispute promptly rather than issuing a 10-day interim order on Article 97(1)(g) as interpreted by the Speaker.
She added that it is vital for the Supreme Court to expedite proceedings, bridging the standard 14-day period, by allowing the constitutional action to proceed through a statement of case, requiring parties to submit their claims within seven days, and moving quickly to resolve the issues presented.
According to the Chief Justice had all parties complied with these directives within the suggested timeline, the case could have been resolved within the 10 days the applicant requested.
END
