Ghana’s parliamentary proceedings have taken a dramatic turn, with Attorney General Godfred Dame submitting his statement in the Supreme Court case challenging Speaker Alban Bagbin’s decision to declare four parliamentary seats vacant.
The case stems from Bagbin’s ruling that three MPs, who intend to run as independent candidates in the December 2024 elections, must vacate their seats.
Additionally, an Independent Candidate, MP for Fomena Andrew Asiamah, has filed to contest the 2024 Parliamentary election on the ticket of the NPP. Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin sought clarity on this matter, arguing that the MPs should retain their seats until the end of the current parliamentary term.
In response, the Supreme Court issued a stay of execution on Bagbin’s ruling, temporarily halting the enforcement of the Speaker’s decision. This move has significant implications for Ghana’s political landscape.
In his statement dated October 21, 2024, Godfred Dame argued that merely filing nominations for future elections does not automatically disqualify MPs from holding their current seats.
He asserted that an MP’s seat can only be vacated during the ongoing parliamentary term if they switch parties or officially declare themselves as independent while still serving within the present Parliament.
Dame emphasized that filing nomination to contest an upcoming election for a place in a future Parliament does not lead to a vacation of the seat.
This clarification is crucial, as it challenges the Speaker’s ruling and emphasizes that running as an independent candidate in a future election should not result in the immediate forfeiture of a parliamentary seat.
Furthermore, Dame stressed that all branches or agencies of government, including Parliament, are subject to the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s judicial review powers to determine the constitutionality of their actions and decisions. He noted that every arm of Government or agency of the State, including Parliament, is subject to the Constitution and to the Supreme Court’s judicial review powers of determining the constitutionality of actions and decisions by that arm or agency.
Consequently, an order, decision, ruling, or determination by the Speaker of Parliament, in contravention of and/or ultra vires to the Constitution, will render such order, decision, ruling, or determination amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
The Attorney General requested that the Supreme Court interpret the Constitution as a whole, ensuring that all relevant parts are considered in relation to the current case. He invited the Court to read the Constitution as a whole, giving effect to the various parts connected with the subject matter of the instant action.
Dame’s submission is significant, as it seeks to establish a clear understanding of the Constitution’s provisions regarding parliamentary seats and the Speaker’s powers.
In a related development, Speaker Alban Bagbin adjourned the parliamentary session indefinitely on Tuesday, October 23, due to a lack of quorum. However, the Minority caucus remains adamant about their claim to being the Majority, despite a recent court ruling.
The Minority argues that until Bagbin makes an official communication, they remain the Majority. This stance has sparked tension and uncertainty within Ghana’s parliamentary proceedings.
As the Supreme Court deliberates on the case, Ghanaians await clarity on the constitutional implications of Bagbin’s ruling and the future of the parliamentary seats in question. The outcome will have significant implications for Ghana’s democratic principles and the rule of law.
