Private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu has publicly encouraged Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin to challenge a recent Supreme Court ruling that overturned his decision to declare four parliamentary seats vacant.
The ruling, delivered by a seven-member panel with a 5-2 majority decision led by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, sided with Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin’s argument that Speaker Bagbin had overstepped his authority by declaring these seats vacant without a judicial review process.
The four parliamentary seats in question included those of MPs Cynthia Mamle Morrison for Agona West, Kwadwo Asante for Suhum, Peter Kwakye-Ackah for Amenfi Central, and Andrew Asiamah for Fomena.
These MPs were affected by the Speaker’s decision as they either shifted party affiliations or opted to run as independents leading up to the 2024 general elections. The decision to declare the seats vacant was rooted in the contention that the MPs’ changes in political stance went against certain parliamentary and party regulations.
However, the Supreme Court determined that Speaker Bagbin’s decision was unconstitutional as it bypassed a formal judicial review, effectively ruling that the matter of declaring a parliamentary seat vacant falls under judicial, not parliamentary, jurisdiction.
In an interview on Tuesday, November 12, Kpebu highlighted the potential long-term implications of Speaker Bagbin challenging the Supreme Court’s decision.
According to him, such a move could reinforce the notion of Parliament’s autonomy, advocating for the independence of the legislative arm and asserting Parliament’s constitutional right to manage its internal matters without undue interference from the judiciary.
He emphasized that the Speaker’s challenge could send a powerful message supporting the separation of powers, which is critical to democratic governance.
Kpebu voiced his concerns about what he perceives as increasing judicial overreach into parliamentary affairs, which he believes risks diluting the balance of power between the branches of government. “He has shown that he is not happy,” Kpebu remarked, referencing Speaker Bagbin’s reported frustration with what he described as collusion between the judiciary and the executive.
The Speaker’s remarks indicate his disapproval of the ruling, with Kpebu interpreting this stance as a likely precursor to an official challenge or pushback from the Speaker.
In Kpebu’s view, such a pushback is not only justified but necessary. “The Speaker needs to push back because when he does, it will force us to think we need judicial independence,” Kpebu explained, underscoring the importance of maintaining a strong, autonomous judiciary free from executive or legislative influence.
He argued that the current state of the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, is weaker than it should be in its role as an impartial arbitrator. For Kpebu, a robust judicial system would better serve democracy by not only respecting its independence but by also allowing Parliament the autonomy to govern its own internal procedures.
The lawyer further stressed that the recent Supreme Court decision highlights the need for constitutional review, especially to address ambiguities regarding the separation of powers and the autonomy of parliamentary procedures.
He believes that a revised constitution would clarify and strengthen the operational boundaries between the judiciary, the legislature, and the executive, ensuring that each branch can operate without unnecessary interference.
Kpebu’s comments echo a broader sentiment among some political observers and legal analysts who have expressed concerns about the blurring of lines between the judiciary and other branches of government.
This particular ruling, in which the Supreme Court directly overturned a decision made by the Speaker of Parliament, has sparked debates on the extent to which judicial authority should influence parliamentary decisions, especially when it involves the legislative body’s internal governance.
By challenging the ruling, Speaker Bagbin would be asserting Parliament’s constitutional rights, according to Kpebu, and prompting a critical re-evaluation of the role of each branch in maintaining Ghana’s democratic integrity.
Reflecting on the case, Kpebu argued that it reveals underlying tensions in Ghana’s governance framework and the delicate balancing act required to preserve democracy. He emphasized that without checks and balances, any one branch of government could wield disproportionate power, thus endangering the democratic principles that the country has worked to uphold.
Speaker Bagbin’s challenge, he believes, would be a proactive step toward safeguarding democracy by reiterating that the Parliament, as a body, has its own set of rules and responsibilities that should not be subordinated to another branch’s interpretations.
In conclusion, Kpebu’s remarks bring to light the intricate dynamics between Ghana’s legislative and judicial branches, sparking a national conversation on the autonomy of Parliament and the broader implications for democracy in Ghana.
As the Speaker considers his next steps, many are watching to see if this challenge will indeed materialize, potentially reshaping the relationship between Parliament and the judiciary and reaffirming the strength of democratic governance.
