The Supreme Court is set to deliver a landmark judgment on Tuesday, November 12, 2024, regarding the controversial decision by the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, to declare four parliamentary seats vacant.
Counsel for the Speaker of Parliament, Thaddeus Sory, did not appear in court on Monday, November 11, also Speaker Bagbin’s statement of case was not filed.
At the last hearing, the Attorney-General challenged the legality of the Speaker’s continued representation by Thaddeus Sory, citing a lack of approval from the Public Procurement Authority.
The case was brought before the court by Alexander Afenyo-Markin, the leader of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) parliamentary caucus. Afenyo-Markin is challenging Speaker Alban Bagbin’s declaration of the seats as vacant, which was made without judicial oversight or the initiation of by-elections.
At the heart of the dispute lies Speaker Bagbin’s interpretation of the 1992 Constitution regarding parliamentary vacancies. On October 17, 2024, Bagbin declared the four seats vacant, claiming that the Members of Parliament (MPs) in question had violated constitutional requirements, thus justifying their removal from office.
However, Afenyo-Markin argues that the Speaker overstepped his constitutional authority by making this decision unilaterally. He maintains that it is the judiciary, not the Speaker, that holds the power to interpret the Constitution in such cases, and that Bagbin’s actions bypassed the due judicial process. Afenyo-Markin further contends that the Speaker’s declaration effectively disenfranchises the affected constituents, denying them their right to proper representation in Parliament.
In response to the suit, the Supreme Court issued an injunction preventing any further actions on the vacated seats until a final judgment could be rendered. Speaker Bagbin, however, filed a motion seeking to reverse the injunction, arguing that halting his declaration infringed upon his duties as Speaker and that his actions were within his powers to safeguard parliamentary integrity.
The Supreme Court dismissed Bagbin’s motion to reverse the injunction, upholding its previous ruling. With the case now poised for a final judgment, all eyes will be on the court’s decision, which is expected to have significant implications for parliamentary procedures and the balance of power between the Speaker and the judiciary.
