Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin announced on Tuesday, October 22, that parliamentary proceedings would be adjourned indefinitely. This decision came after a particularly heated session, marked by intense disputes between Members of Parliament (MPs) from the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC). The primary issue at the heart of these tensions is the ongoing debate over which caucus holds the Majority in the House.
In his announcement, Speaker Bagbin briefly referred to a communication he had received from the Supreme Court. The Court’s directive, he noted, instructed him to stay his earlier ruling that had declared four parliamentary seats vacant. However, Bagbin did not provide further details about the Court’s communication, leaving both MPs and observers uncertain about its full implications.
During his address to the House, the Speaker explained that while there were enough members present to conduct business, the numbers were insufficient to make decisions. “Honorable members, we don’t have at least half of all the Members of Parliament present. Consequently, in view of the current circumstances, the fact that there’s a question on the composition and constitution of Parliament, and having regard to the public interest, and the exigencies of the affairs in Parliament, I will proceed to, in accordance with standing order 59, adjourn the House indefinitely—sine die.”
Bagbin also emphasized that he had consulted with parliamentary leadership before making the decision to adjourn. “Honorable members, I have consulted leadership and I’m exercising my discretion to suspend the meeting of the House indefinitely. The House is accordingly adjourned sine die.”
This announcement comes amid a complex and highly contentious legal battle over the four parliamentary seats that were declared vacant by Bagbin on October 17. These seats, which include two NPP, one NDC, and one independent, have been a central point of dispute. The affected constituencies are Agona West (Cynthia Morrison of the NPP), Fomena (Andrew Asiamah, an independent MP), Suhum (Kwadjo Asante of the NPP), and Amenfi Central (Peter Kwakye Ackah of the NDC).
The Supreme Court’s recent intervention, which effectively halts Bagbin’s ruling, has added another layer of complexity to the situation. The Court’s involvement underscores the legal and constitutional challenges that Parliament is currently grappling with, as both parties await further clarification on the status of the vacant seats.
Earlier in the day, tensions had escalated in the Chamber when NPP MPs decided to vacate the House, leaving the NDC to occupy both sides. This walkout was a direct response to the disagreements surrounding the Majority designation, an issue that has been a source of contention since the ruling on October 17. The absence of NPP MPs led to a lack of quorum, which is the minimum number of members required to conduct official business. This lack of quorum was cited by Speaker Bagbin as one of the key reasons for the indefinite adjournment.
The Speaker’s decision not to fully disclose the contents of the Supreme Court’s communication has left significant questions unanswered. Both MPs and the public are left speculating about the future of the vacant seats and the broader implications for the parliamentary composition. The ambiguity surrounding the Court’s directive has only heightened the uncertainty that currently surrounds parliamentary proceedings.
As Parliament stands adjourned indefinitely, the political landscape remains fraught with uncertainty. Both the NPP and NDC now await further clarity on the substantive legal case before the Supreme Court. Until the Court issues a definitive ruling, the status of the vacant parliamentary seats remains unresolved, and the broader question of which party holds the Majority in Parliament continues to hang in the balance.
This indefinite adjournment signals a pause in the legislative process, but it also reflects the deep political and legal challenges currently facing Ghana’s Parliament. The resolution of these disputes will likely have significant implications for the country’s political stability and the future functioning of its legislative body.
As the nation watches closely, the outcome of this legal battle could set important precedents for parliamentary procedure and the interpretation of Ghana’s constitution. In the meantime, MPs from both parties, as well as the public, are left waiting for further developments in what has become one of the most contentious periods in the history of Ghana’s Parliament.
