NEWS

Supreme Court Set to Decide on Controversial Case Over Vacant Seats This Tuesday

Supreme Court Poised to Rule on Controversial Vacant Seats Case

Supreme Court Grants Attorney General a Seven-Day Extension in Anti-Gay Bill Case — Supreme Court to Rule on Controversial Vacant Seats Case

On Tuesday, November 12, 2024, the Supreme Court is expected to issue a critical ruling on a contentious decision by Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin, who declared four parliamentary seats vacant.

This decision, made in October, has spurred widespread debate about the limits of parliamentary power and the Speaker’s authority under the 1992 Constitution.

The case was brought forward by Alexander Afenyo-Markin, leader of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) parliamentary caucus, who disputes Bagbin’s declaration of the seats as vacant without judicial review or by-election proceedings.

Central to Afenyo-Markin’s argument is that only the judiciary holds the power to interpret constitutional matters regarding parliamentary vacancies. He contends that Speaker Bagbin’s unilateral action overreached his constitutional authority, bypassed judicial due process, and stripped constituents of rightful representation in Parliament.

On October 17, 2024, Speaker Bagbin announced the seats as vacant, alleging that certain MPs had breached constitutional obligations, which he believed warranted their removal. However, Afenyo-Markin argues that this action should have been subject to judicial scrutiny and not a sole decision by the Speaker. He asserts that Bagbin’s declaration disenfranchises the affected communities, denying them the representation they deserve.

The Supreme Court had previously issued an injunction to halt any further action on the vacant seats pending a final judgment. Bagbin responded by seeking to have this injunction lifted, arguing that it hindered his parliamentary responsibilities and that his declaration was within his remit to maintain legislative integrity. However, the Supreme Court dismissed his motion, reaffirming the injunction and setting the stage for Tuesday’s pivotal ruling.

Further complicating the case, Speaker Bagbin’s legal counsel, Thaddeus Sory, did not appear in court on November 11, and Bagbin’s formal defense was not filed. Additionally, the Attorney-General raised questions regarding the legality of Sory’s continued representation due to a lack of approval from the Public Procurement Authority.

With the Supreme Court’s final judgment imminent, the ruling is expected to clarify the boundaries of authority between the Speaker of Parliament and the judiciary. This decision could set a precedent for future cases involving constitutional interpretation and the extent of parliamentary powers. The nation watches closely as the court prepares to deliver a verdict with potentially far-reaching implications for Ghana’s parliamentary system.