Bagbin’s decision usurps Supreme Court powers – Majority

The Majority caucus has sharply criticized Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin’s decision to declare the parliamentary seats of four MPs vacant, following a motion filed by former Minority Leader Haruna Iddrisu.

The motion invoked constitutional provisions that require MPs who seek to run as independent candidates or switch party affiliations to vacate their seats.

The affected MPs are Cynthia Morrison (Agona West), Kwadjo Asante (Suhum), Andrew Asiamah (Fomena), and Peter Kwakye Ackah (Amenfi Central).

This ruling significantly impacts the balance of power in Parliament, potentially giving the Minority caucus, led by the National Democratic Congress (NDC), a majority over the New Patriotic Party (NPP)-led Majority caucus.

With the NDC now holding 136 seats and the NPP 135, the shift could influence critical parliamentary votes and decisions leading up to the 2024 general elections.

The Majority caucus, in a statement issued on Thursday, October 17, accused Bagbin of overstepping his authority by ruling on the issue preemptively, which they argue is the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

They claim that the Speaker’s decision undermines the separation of powers and encroaches on the judicial role of determining matters of this nature.

The statement emphasized that Bagbin’s ruling constitutes a “grave violation” of parliamentary procedure and is an act of judicial overreach.

The Majority caucus believes that the matter of whether these MPs should lose their seats should have been left for the courts to decide, rather than the Speaker issuing an immediate ruling.

This development has heightened political tensions in Parliament, and the Majority caucus has signalled its intent to challenge the decision through legal channels while considering the broader implications for the functioning of the legislative body.

“The Speaker’s actions constitute a clear usurpation of powers vested in the Supreme Court of Ghana under Articles 2(1) and 130 of the 1992 Constitution. These provisions explicitly empower the Supreme Court with the authority to interpret and enforce constitutional matters.

“Furthermore, the Speaker’s actions contravene Article 99(1) of the Constitution, which vests the High Court with jurisdiction to determine questions of parliamentary membership validity. By pre-emptively ruling on this issue, the Speaker has egregiously undermined the separation of powers that is fundamental to our democracy.”

They expressed concerns about the Speaker’s disregard for the ongoing judicial processes.

“Disregard for Ongoing Judicial Processes: It is particularly troubling that the Speaker proceeded with this ruling despite being fully aware that the matter of the meaning and effect of Article 94(1)(g) was pending before the Supreme Court.

“The Majority Leader had filed a suit against the Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney General on October 15, 2024, seeking constitutional interpretation of the said provision, and formally notified the Speaker of this fact during the parliamentary session on October 16, 2024. Crucially, Parliament was officially served with the writ through its Legal Department on October 16, 2024, a day before the Speaker’s ruling.”

In response to the Speaker’s decision, the Majority staged a walkout and has vowed to boycott Parliament until the matter is decided by the Supreme Court.