The Member of Parliament for Bawku Central, Mahama Ayariga, has stated that National Democratic Congress (NDC) legislators are preparing to assume the Majority position in Parliament when the House reconvenes on Tuesday, October 22, 2024.
This move comes despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, which granted a stay of execution on a decision by Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin to declare four parliamentary seats vacant. According to Ayariga, unless Speaker Bagbin issues a contrary directive, the NDC will proceed as the Majority.
In a recent interview on Citi FM’s Citi Breakfast Show, Ayariga explained that MPs are bound to follow the rulings of the Speaker, not the Supreme Court’s stay of execution. The Supreme Court’s ruling temporarily halted Bagbin’s earlier decision, which had rendered four constituencies—Amenfi Central, Fomena, Suhum, and Agona West—vacant. However, Ayariga and the NDC caucus believe that, until the Speaker communicates otherwise, they will act in accordance with Bagbin’s original directive.
“We will act according to Bagbin’s communique, and until he communicates otherwise, we will go by his current decision. If he comes and communicates to us what the court has ruled, we will act, because we listen to the Speaker and not to the court,” Ayariga stressed.
This tension arises from Speaker Bagbin’s declaration on October 17, 2024, that the four parliamentary seats were vacant. His decision was based on a motion filed by former Minority Leader Haruna Iddrisu, invoking constitutional provisions that mandate MPs who switch political affiliations or contest as independent candidates to forfeit their seats. This development would have granted the NDC an automatic majority in Parliament, a move that dramatically shifted the political balance.
However, the Supreme Court intervened just a day later, on October 18, 2024, when it ruled in favor of a stay of execution, effectively quashing Bagbin’s ruling. The court’s decision followed a request by the Majority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, who sought to prevent the enforcement of Bagbin’s declaration. This ruling has created a legal and political clash between the Supreme Court and Parliament, particularly within the NDC camp, which views the court’s involvement as overreach.
Ayariga strongly criticized the Supreme Court’s decision, asserting that the court had overstepped its constitutional boundaries by intervening in a parliamentary matter. He argued that such issues should not fall within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, stating that the Court’s actions raised concerns about the separation of powers and its independence from the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP).
“This is a matter that should not have been entertained by the Supreme Court. This was a matter that was supposed to even go to the High Court. What is so urgent that the Supreme Court had to convene and decide on the matter in less than 24 hours?” Ayariga questioned during the interview.
He further expressed his belief that the Supreme Court had acted inappropriately by getting involved in an internal parliamentary issue, suggesting that its swift ruling appeared to benefit the NPP’s political agenda. According to Ayariga, the court’s ruling has caused many to question whether the Supreme Court is operating as an extension of the NPP government.
“These are matters that the Supreme Court should not be interfering in, and the Supreme Court must stay off these matters. To come in and say these things makes one think the Supreme Court is an extension of the NPP. These are pure parliamentary matters,” Ayariga remarked.
Ayariga’s comments reflect the broader frustrations within the NDC over the Supreme Court’s intervention, which has stalled their push to take control of Parliament as the Majority. The party had anticipated gaining a majority in the legislative body following Bagbin’s ruling, which would have significantly impacted the balance of power ahead of key legislative decisions in the months leading up to the 2024 general elections.
The legal dispute between the Speaker of Parliament and the Supreme Court has underscored a delicate balance of power between the judiciary and the legislature in Ghana. While the Supreme Court’s authority is respected as the highest legal body in the land, its involvement in this case has sparked debate about whether its actions undermine the autonomy of Parliament.
As it stands, the NDC plans to continue acting in line with Speaker Bagbin’s original decision unless he issues a contrary directive when Parliament reconvenes. The question remains whether the Speaker will comply with the Supreme Court’s stay of execution or reaffirm his previous declaration that the four seats are vacant.
This ongoing conflict adds further complexity to Ghana’s political landscape as the country approaches the next elections. The outcome of this dispute could have far-reaching implications for both the NDC and the NPP, particularly as it relates to the control of Parliament and the legislative process moving forward.
For now, Ayariga and the NDC caucus are standing firm in their position, maintaining that they will listen to the Speaker of Parliament rather than the court. How this matter is ultimately resolved remains to be seen, but it is clear that the tension between the judiciary and the legislature will continue to be a focal point in Ghana’s political discourse in the coming weeks.
