On October 17, the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Caucus staged a boycott of Parliament, protesting a ruling by Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin that did not align with their interests. The boycott, led by Alexander Afenyo-Markin, the Majority Leader and Member of Parliament for Effutu, was part of a broader strategy.
Afenyo-Markin announced that the caucus would continue absent from parliamentary sessions until the Supreme Court decides on an ex parte application he submitted.
The controversy stems from a ruling by the Speaker declaring four parliamentary seats vacant. In response, on October 18, the Supreme Court issued a Stay of Execution, effectively suspending the Speaker’s decision. This move temporarily preserved the seats, a decision that the Speaker immediately challenged. Through his legal representative, Thaddeus Sory, Speaker Bagbin argued that the Supreme Court had overstepped its bounds. According to him, the Court misapplied the law by intervening in what he termed a non-judicial decision. Bagbin’s application requested the Court to overturn its stay of execution and reinstate his ruling on the vacant seats. He further requested the dismissal of Afenyo-Markin’s writ, which sought to prevent him from making any further rulings on the status of those seats.
Bagbin’s position centers on a constitutional interpretation: he contends that the Supreme Court’s authority to stay execution applies strictly to judicial decisions, not parliamentary rulings, as Parliament functions outside the judicial framework. “Under the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, the Supreme Court’s power to stay execution of rulings is limited to its own decisions and those of lower courts in the judicial hierarchy, not to rulings of the Speaker of Parliament, who is outside the judicial structure,” Bagbin’s motion asserted.
For constitutional law purists, this standoff may invoke memories of Re Akoto and Seven Others, a pivotal case in Ghana’s legal history where the Supreme Court was called upon to assert constitutional rights under the 1960 Republican Constitution. Many saw that case as a missed opportunity for the Court to solidify its role as a safeguard of citizens’ rights, a legacy that still echoes in today’s legal landscape.
Bagbin’s challenge presents a potential constitutional crisis: should the Supreme Court uphold the Speaker’s argument, it might suggest that the Speaker could independently interpret constitutional provisions, potentially undermining the Court’s supervisory powers under Articles 132 and 133(1) of the Constitution. Article 132 grants the Supreme Court supervisory jurisdiction over all adjudicating authorities, empowering it to issue orders and directives to enforce this authority. Article 133(1) provides the Court with the right to review its own decisions, as outlined by procedural rules. A decision in Bagbin’s favor could limit these supervisory and interpretative powers, granting Parliament a quasi-judicial role in constitutional interpretation.
In the present case, however, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled against Speaker Bagbin. After reviewing submissions from all involved parties, including arguments from the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, the Court upheld its earlier decision, stating that Bagbin’s appeal held no merit. “We have considered the application, and we have come to the conclusion that the grounds supporting the application have no merit,” stated the Chief Justice.
This outcome affirms the Supreme Court’s exclusive original jurisdiction in all matters relating to the enforcement or interpretation of the 1992 constitution and all matters arrissing as to whether an enactment was made in excess of the powers conferred on Parliament or any other authority or person by law or under the 1992 constitution of Ghana.
By: Edwin Kobina Coleman
