A seven-member panel of the Supreme Court has declared as unconstitutional Speaker, Alban Bagbin's declaration of four seats vacant.
The panel chaired by Chief Justice, Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo ruled in a 5-2 majority decision on Tuesday, November 12.
She noted that a detailed explanation of the ruling will be provided later.
Speaking to the media after the ruling, Member of Parliament for Effutu, Alexander Afenyo-Markin said he expects Bagbin to respect the outcome of the case.
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.