Supreme Court overrules Bagbin’s decision on vacant seats

The Supreme Court has ruled against Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin’s decision to declare four parliamentary seats vacant, siding with a challenge brought forward by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin.

In Tuesday’s ruling, the seven-member panel, led by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, delivered a 5-2 majority decision in favour of Afenyo-Markin. Chief Justice Torkornoo noted that a detailed explanation of the ruling will be provided later.

The dispute revolves around Speaker Bagbin’s interpretation of Article 97(1)(g) of the Ghanaian Constitution, which he cited as the basis for declaring the seats vacant. The move was met with legal and political pushback, with Afenyo-Markin arguing that Bagbin had exceeded his authority by bypassing judicial review and denying the possibility of by-elections in the affected constituencies.Tourism packages

The Supreme Court had previously issued an interim injunction to prevent the implementation of the Speaker’s ruling. In response, Speaker Bagbin filed a counter-application, arguing that parliamentary decisions are beyond the judiciary’s reach, as they pertain to non-judicial matters.

Bagbin’s counsel, Thaddeus Sory, contended that judicial intervention in parliamentary affairs infringes on the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

However, Chief Justice Torkornoo dismissed Bagbin’s application, affirming the Court’s authority to intervene when parliamentary actions are suspected of violating constitutional provisions.

She expressed concern over the potential disenfranchisement of constituents who might lose their parliamentary representation without the option of by-elections, especially with the upcoming December 7 general elections.

The Chief Justice directed both parties to submit their statements of claim within seven days to ensure a swift resolution.

This case raises critical questions about the separation of powers and the constitutional boundaries of parliamentary authority. It underscores the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional principles while navigating tensions with Parliament’s autonomy.