The Majority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, has called on the Minority in Parliament to take legal action if they believe they have a solid case in the ongoing parliamentary dispute. His comments come in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to stay the execution of Speaker Alban Bagbin’s ruling, which declared the seats of four Members of Parliament (MPs) vacant.
The Speaker’s ruling, based on a motion by former Minority Leader Haruna Iddrisu, cited constitutional provisions requiring MPs who switch political affiliations or intend to run as independent candidates to vacate their seats. This ruling affected Cynthia Morrison of Agona West, Kwadjo Asante of Suhum, Andrew Amoako Asiamah of Fomena, and Peter Kwakye Ackah of Amenfi Central, who were declared to have violated these provisions by either switching political parties or announcing their intention to contest as independents in the December 2024 elections.
In response, the Majority in Parliament staged a walkout, protesting the Speaker’s decision as unconstitutional and unjust. They argued that the ruling undermined the democratic representation of the MPs’ constituents and claimed that the Speaker overstepped his authority.
Seeking clarity on the legal status of the MPs, Afenyo-Markin took swift action by filing with the Supreme Court on Tuesday, October 15, two days before the Speaker delivered his ruling. His filing requested the court to intervene and clarify whether the MPs could maintain their seats while contesting in the upcoming elections, whether as members of the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP) or as independent candidates.
On Friday, October 17, the Supreme Court granted Afenyo-Markin’s request by issuing a stay of execution on the Speaker’s ruling. This effectively suspended the Speaker’s decision, temporarily halting any actions related to the declaration of the MPs’ seats as vacant until a final verdict is reached.
Following the court’s ruling, Afenyo-Markin addressed the media on Friday, October 18, expressing his satisfaction with the decision. He emphasized that the ruling upheld the legal rights of the four MPs, thereby preserving the democratic representation of their constituencies.
In his remarks, Afenyo-Markin stated, “The court has determined the matter and has ordered the parties to file the necessary processes for the final determination of the matter. That is it. So we expect our colleagues and all those involved in this matter to respect the law, including the Right Honourable Speaker.”
He went on to assert that the Majority had a strong legal case and expressed confidence that their position would prevail. “We are democrats. We don’t believe in violence. We don’t believe in mischief and unnecessary political chaos. We came to court believing that the court would do right and indeed the court has just done it. The rights of those MPs have been reinforced, as well as the rights of those constituents who elected them.”
Afenyo-Markin also took the opportunity to challenge the Minority in Parliament, particularly those from the National Democratic Congress (NDC), to address the matter through legal means rather than political maneuvering. “Those NDC people who are walking about claiming to be the Majority, if they know the law, they should now face us in the law,” he remarked, referring to the ongoing dispute over the parliamentary seats.
The legal battle stems from Speaker Bagbin’s decision, which relied on Article 97(1)(g) of the 1992 Constitution. The article states that an MP’s seat becomes vacant if the MP ceases to be a member of the party under which they were elected to Parliament or if they decide to run as an independent candidate. The Speaker’s ruling was based on this constitutional provision, declaring that the four MPs had breached the rules by either leaving their political party or choosing to run as independents.
A key part of the legal proceedings involves the requirement for both the Speaker and the Attorney General to file their respective statements of case in response to the suit filed by Afenyo-Markin. The Supreme Court has ordered them to file these documents within a set period to facilitate the final determination of the matter.
The case has drawn significant public interest due to its potential impact on the composition of Ghana’s Parliament. The ruling party, NPP, and the opposition NDC are closely matched in terms of parliamentary representation, and any change in the status of the affected MPs could tip the balance of power in one direction or the other.
While the stay of execution has temporarily maintained the current composition of Parliament, the final ruling will determine the long-term fate of the four MPs and whether they can continue to serve their constituencies while running as independents or under different political banners.
Afenyo-Markin’s remarks have further escalated the political tension between the Majority and Minority factions in Parliament. The Majority insists that the court’s ruling vindicates their position and ensures that the democratic will of the people is respected. Meanwhile, the Minority has yet to formally respond to Afenyo-Markin’s challenge to pursue the matter through legal channels.
The outcome of this case is expected to have far-reaching implications, not only for the affected MPs but also for Ghana’s political landscape as the country approaches the December 2024 general elections. With the parliamentary dispute still unresolved, all eyes are now on the Supreme Court as it prepares to deliver a final verdict that could shape the future of Ghana’s legislative body.
