In a significant judicial decision, the Supreme Court of Ghana ruled against Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin’s attempt to declare four parliamentary seats vacant. This ruling, delivered on Tuesday by a seven-member panel led by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, sided with a challenge brought forward by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin.
With a 5-2 majority decision, the Court upheld Afenyo-Markin’s challenge, marking a pivotal moment in the ongoing tension between Ghana’s judiciary and Parliament.
The dispute centers around Speaker Bagbin’s interpretation of Article 97(1)(g) of the Ghanaian Constitution. Bagbin had used this provision as the legal basis to declare the seats vacant. However, Afenyo-Markin argued that the Speaker’s decision overstepped his authority, bypassing necessary judicial review and denying the possibility of holding by-elections in the affected constituencies. He contended that Bagbin’s action not only challenged parliamentary norms but also risked undermining the constitutional separation of powers by allowing Parliament to make decisions that, under the Constitution, might require judicial oversight.
The Supreme Court’s decision follows a series of legal maneuvers by both sides. Initially, the Court had issued an interim injunction to prevent Speaker Bagbin’s ruling from taking effect. In response, Bagbin filed a counter-application, arguing that parliamentary decisions are beyond judicial reach since they fall under non-judicial matters. This application sought to reinforce Parliament’s autonomy in internal matters without interference from the judiciary.
Representing Bagbin, lawyer Thaddeus Sory argued that any judicial intervention would infringe upon the constitutional principle of separation of powers, which aims to maintain distinct functions for each branch of government. He suggested that the judiciary’s involvement in parliamentary decisions might set a precedent for the judiciary to intrude upon the functions and independence of Parliament.
However, Chief Justice Torkornoo and the majority of the panel disagreed, dismissing Bagbin’s application. In her judgment, the Chief Justice affirmed the Supreme Court’s authority to step in when parliamentary actions seem to contradict constitutional provisions. Torkornoo noted that, while parliamentary decisions generally enjoy autonomy, the judiciary has a duty to ensure that such decisions align with the Constitution. Her statement emphasized the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional safeguards, even when Parliament asserts its own independence.
Chief Justice Torkornoo expressed particular concern for the constituents of the affected constituencies, who stood to lose their representation in Parliament without a clear path to by-elections. She warned that Bagbin’s decision, if unchecked, might effectively disenfranchise these voters, especially given that the December 7 general elections are approaching. Her ruling underscored the Court’s priority to protect citizens’ rights to representation and maintain electoral continuity.
The Chief Justice also ordered that both parties submit their detailed statements of claim within seven days to expedite a resolution. This directive aims to ensure that all legal arguments are fully examined without prolonged delays, given the potential impact on the constituencies involved. The case is likely to remain under close public scrutiny, as it raises foundational questions about the balance of powers between Ghana’s judiciary and legislative bodies.
The legal implications of this ruling are broad and complex, touching on the very framework that defines the boundaries of legislative and judicial power in Ghana. At the heart of the debate is Article 97(1)(g) of the Constitution, which the Speaker had invoked as the authority to declare seats vacant. The interpretation and application of this article remain contentious, as it does not clearly outline Parliament’s power to bypass the judiciary in determining the status of parliamentary seats. The ruling suggests that such constitutional ambiguities will likely need further clarification either through judicial decisions or legislative amendments.
This decision underscores the Supreme Court’s view that the judiciary holds a vital oversight role in ensuring that all government branches operate within constitutional boundaries. By ruling against Bagbin, the Court reinforces a judicial check on Parliament, emphasizing that no branch can exercise power without accountability, especially when citizens’ rights are potentially at stake.
The outcome of this case also highlights the Court’s caution in addressing the broader issue of separation of powers. While Parliament possesses significant autonomy in managing its internal affairs, this autonomy is not absolute. The Supreme Court’s intervention signals its commitment to protecting constitutional rights even when it means challenging another branch of government. In this case, the judiciary took a stand to prevent what it saw as a potential overreach by Parliament that could set a dangerous precedent if left unchecked.
As the case moves forward, Ghanaians are watching closely, with political and legal analysts speculating on the potential ripple effects this ruling may have on future parliamentary decisions and judicial interventions. The ruling may prompt legislators to revisit and clarify the specific provisions of Article 97(1)(g) to avoid similar disputes in the future. Meanwhile, Chief Justice Torkornoo’s indication that a more detailed explanation of the ruling will be released later has left room for further insights into the judicial reasoning behind the decision.
The public reaction to the ruling has been mixed, with opinions largely divided along political lines. Supporters of Afenyo-Markin and the majority in Parliament view the ruling as a victory for democratic oversight and the rule of law. They argue that Bagbin’s attempt to declare seats vacant without judicial review was an overreach that disregarded procedural fairness. According to this view, the Supreme Court’s intervention was necessary to prevent any single branch of government from wielding unchecked power.
On the other hand, some backers of Speaker Bagbin argue that the ruling threatens parliamentary independence. They believe that the judiciary’s intervention could embolden the courts to involve themselves in parliamentary decisions more frequently, potentially undermining Parliament’s ability to govern its own affairs. Critics fear that this ruling may set a precedent for the judiciary to overstep into areas traditionally managed by Parliament, weakening the autonomy that is a core principle of Ghana’s democratic framework.
As both sides prepare their statements of claim, legal scholars are anticipating that this case will continue to be influential in defining the limits of power between Ghana’s governmental branches. The Supreme Court’s decision has added a significant chapter to Ghana’s constitutional law, reminding all branches of the importance of checks and balances in a democratic system. This ruling reinforces the role of the judiciary as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, capable of ensuring that all governmental actions remain within legal bounds, especially when individual rights, such as the right to parliamentary representation, are involved.
With this judgment, the Supreme Court has not only ruled on a specific case but has set a tone for the broader interplay between Ghana’s judiciary and Parliament. The detailed explanation, when it arrives, is expected to provide further insights into the Court’s stance on separation of powers and judicial review, possibly shaping future legal debates and legislative actions.
For now, the immediate priority remains on how both sides will proceed within the seven-day deadline set by the Chief Justice, and how this ruling will impact the conduct of Parliament in the lead-up to the December 7 general elections.
