Supreme Court asserts authority in case against Speaker’s declaration of vacant seats

The Chief Justice has directed Mr. Thaddeus Sory, the lawyer for Speaker Alban Bagbin, to file necessary documents by close of business on Thursday, following an adjournment of the case to Monday, November 11. This ongoing case centers on Speaker Bagbin’s declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacant, a decision challenged in court.

The Speaker’s legal team contended that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction over the matter, presenting several arguments in court. However, after hearing submissions from the Attorney-General, the Minister for Justice, and other parties, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its initial ruling, stating that the Speaker’s appeal was “without merit.”

This decision comes after Speaker Bagbin filed an application seeking to overturn the Court’s previous ruling, which suspended his declaration of the four seats as vacant. The legal challenge was initiated by Alexander Afenyo-Markin, the New Patriotic Party Caucus Leader and MP for Effutu, following Bagbin’s vacancy declaration.

In a move to interpret Article 97 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, the Supreme Court has set the next hearing for November 11. Article 97 outlines the conditions for vacating a parliamentary seat, including a member leaving the party they were elected with or choosing to serve as an independent. Specifically, Article 97(h) provides for vacating a seat if a member elected as an independent joins a political party.

On October 30, the Court directed Speaker Bagbin to file all related processes by November 11 and, in the same session, dismissed his application to overturn the prior ruling. The Chief Justice concluded that the application “had no merit,” with Thaddeus Sory, Bagbin’s lawyer, responding, “As the court pleases.”

The Supreme Court’s involvement began with an ex parte motion by Afenyo-Markin, prompting a courst hearing of Bagbin’s declaration. Bagbin subsequently argued that the Court misapplied the law by halting his declaration, describing it as a non-judicial decision beyond the Court’s jurisdiction. He further petitioned the Court to dismiss the stay of execution and set aside Afenyo-Markin’s writ, which aimed to prevent the Speaker’s declaration on the four seats.

According to Bagbin’s motion, “In terms of orders staying execution of rulings, the Supreme Court’s powers under the 1992 Constitution and statute are limited to rulings of itself and courts lower in the judicial hierarchy, but do not extend to a ruling of the Speaker of Parliament.” The Speaker’s legal argument maintains that, as a separate government branch, parliamentary rulings fall outside the judicial hierarchy and thus are not subject to judicial orders.