Attorney General Godfred Dame has presented his defense as the second defendant in a Supreme Court case brought by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin. The case challenges the decision made by Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin to declare four parliamentary seats vacant.
The legal dispute arose after Speaker Bagbin ruled that three Members of Parliament (MPs) who intend to run as independent candidates in the upcoming December 2024 elections must vacate their current seats. This ruling has sparked controversy, especially regarding the status of MPs who file to run in future elections as independent candidates while still serving in the present Parliament. Additionally, Andrew Asiamah, MP for Fomena, who initially served as an independent MP, has decided to contest the 2024 parliamentary election under the New Patriotic Party (NPP) ticket, further complicating the matter.
Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, seeking legal clarity on this issue, argued that the MPs in question should retain their seats until the end of the current parliamentary term, despite their intentions to contest as independent candidates in the next election. Afenyo-Markin believes that the Speaker’s ruling is premature and that the MPs should not be required to vacate their seats until the 2024 election period is officially underway.
In response to this dispute, the Supreme Court issued a stay of execution on Speaker Bagbin’s ruling, temporarily halting its enforcement. This move ensures that the affected MPs can continue serving in Parliament while the legal battle proceeds in court.
In his statement dated October 21, 2024, Attorney General Godfred Dame strongly opposed the Speaker’s decision, providing a detailed defense of the MPs’ right to remain in office. Dame argued that merely filing nominations for future elections does not automatically disqualify MPs from holding their current seats. He emphasized that an MP’s seat can only be vacated during the ongoing parliamentary term if the MP switches political parties or officially declares themselves as independent while still serving in Parliament.
This clarification from the Attorney General is pivotal, as it directly challenges Speaker Bagbin’s ruling. Dame stressed that running as an independent candidate in a future election should not lead to the immediate forfeiture of an MP’s seat in the current Parliament. “Filing nomination to contest an upcoming election for a place in a future Parliament does not lead to a vacation of the seat,” Dame stated. His position underscores the view that MPs should not be penalized for preparing to run in future elections as long as they remain in good standing with their current parties or have not declared their independence.
Furthermore, Godfred Dame argued that all branches of government, including Parliament, are subject to the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s judicial review powers. He highlighted the role of the judiciary in ensuring that the actions and decisions of Parliament are in line with the country’s Constitution. “Every arm of Government or agency of the State, including Parliament, is subject to the Constitution and to the Supreme Court’s judicial review powers of determining the constitutionality of actions and decisions by that arm or agency,” Dame noted.
He continued by explaining that if any order, decision, or ruling made by the Speaker of Parliament is found to be in violation of the Constitution, it would be subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. “Consequently, an order, decision, ruling, or determination by the Speaker of Parliament, in contravention of and/or ultra vires to the Constitution, will render such order, decision, ruling, or determination amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court,” Dame added.
The Attorney General requested that the Supreme Court interpret the Constitution holistically, ensuring that all relevant parts are considered in relation to the case at hand. He called for a comprehensive reading of the Constitution to fully understand the parameters of the issue, particularly concerning the life and session of Parliament. “Respectfully, in coming to the conclusions above, we will invite the Court to read the Constitution as a whole, giving effect to the various parts connected with the subject matter of the instant action,” Dame urged.
He further clarified that the term “Parliament,” as used in Article 97 of the Constitution, refers specifically to the session of Parliament or the life of a particular Parliament and nothing beyond that scope. This interpretation, if accepted by the Court, would significantly impact the ongoing case and the future treatment of MPs who file to run in subsequent elections.
On Tuesday, October 23, the Speaker of Parliament adjourned the parliamentary session indefinitely due to a lack of quorum. However, the political tensions continue to rise as the Minority caucus asserts its claim to being the Majority in Parliament, despite a recent court ruling. The Minority insists that until the Speaker makes an official declaration, they remain the Majority in Parliament, maintaining their stance amidst the ongoing legal and political battles.
As the Supreme Court deliberates on the case, the ruling will have far-reaching consequences not only for the MPs involved but also for the broader interpretation of parliamentary procedure and the rights of MPs in Ghana’s political landscape. All eyes are now on the Supreme Court as the country awaits its final decision on this contentious matter.
