By Godwin Owusu Frimpong
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has firmly rejected Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin’s request to overturn its previous order, which placed a stay on the execution of the declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacant. This decision underscores the apex court’s authority and approach to constitutional interpretation, particularly concerning the contentious Article 97 of the Constitution.
The origin of the case pertains to a challenge filed by Effutu MP Alexander Afenyo-Markin against Speaker Bagbin’s controversial pronouncement that four parliamentary positions were vacant. In advocating for the Speaker, his legal team contended that the Supreme Court should not have jurisdiction over the matter, arguing that Article 99 designates the High Court as the appropriate forum for such disputes.
However, the five-member panel led by the Chief Justice dismissed these claims as meritless. They clarified that the Supreme Court possesses the jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution, and that even if the case were to proceed in the High Court, it would ultimately be referred back to them for clarification on the contested Article.
In their arguments, the Speaker’s counsel, Thaddeus Sory, sought to challenge the validity of the court’s order, suggesting that it was founded on a misunderstanding of the Speaker’s ruling, which he asserted was not executable. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court maintained that their initial order, issued on October 18, effectively suspending Bagbin’s declaration made the day before, should remain in effect until a final resolution is reached.
The ruling also addressed concerns raised by the Speaker’s legal team regarding potential conflicts of interest for Justice Ernest Gaewu, given his previous political affiliations with the New Patriotic Party (NPP). The Court dismissed these objections, emphasizing its commitment to impartiality.
This ruling carries substantial implications for Ghana’s parliamentary dynamics, particularly as both major political factions assert their claim to a majority. The Supreme Court’s decision not only reinforces its role in delineating constitutional law but also sets a precedent in matters of parliamentary authority and governance, ensuring that the legislative process remains subject to judicial scrutiny when necessary.
In essence, the Supreme Court’s decision affirms the need for clarity and adherence to constitutional mandates, allowing for a more robust examination of parliamentary actions amid claims of majority control, thereby stabilizing the legal and political landscape.
Godwin Owusu Frimpong
