I commend you for your service to your beloved country. I write in relation to the recent standoff between the legislature and the judiciary of Ghana.

After the Speaker of Parliament’s attention was drawn to the actions of the four Members of Parliament (MPs) namely;

• Andrew Asiamah                     –         MP, Fomena (Independent to NPP)
• Cynthia Morrison           –         MP, Agona West (NPP to Independent)
• Kojo Asante                              –         MP, Suhum (NPP to Independent)
• Peter Kwakye Ackah     –         MP, Amenfi Central (NDC to Independent)

He gave effect to the constitutional provision that their actions had invoked. These aforementioned MPs have filed their candidacy to run in the upcoming 2024 general elections.

The reason for the three who are running as independent candidates is obviously borne out of animosity with their estranged political parties.

The notice of polls released by the Electoral Commission (EC), the authorised body in charge of elections in Ghana indicate a switch in tickets. Article 97(1) (g) and (h) address this instance. It reads,

(g) – “A member of Parliament shall vacate his (their) seat in Parliament – if he (they) leave(s) the party of which he (they) was (were) a member at the time of his (their) election to Parliament to join another party or seeks to remain in Parliament as an independent member; or

(h) – if he (they) was (were) elected a member of Parliament as an independent candidate and join(s) a political party.” [pronoun and verb revision mine]

Your Lordship, you were interviewed on the matter on the 12^th of November, 2024 by JoyNews.

In your submission, you emphatically stated that the matter should have been directed to the High Court and not the Supreme Court as indicated under article 99(1) of the Constitution, 1992. You further stated that the Supreme Court only has referential jurisdiction.

This means, in the event that the High Court deems a constitutional provision worthy of interpretation as a result of ambiguity or any mischief it may serve, then the matter in respect of the interpretation only will be referred to the Supreme Court. After which the interpretation will be used to reach a verdict at the High Court.

When asked what you would have done when the suit was filed, you responded that you will have directed the plaintiffs to the High Court.

However, if the provision is drafted in clear language devoid of any ambiguity or mischief, then there will be no reason for a Supreme Court interpretation.

It is my conviction that you agree that the wording used by the drafters of Article 97(1)(g) and (h) is clear, likewise is 99(1).

Your Lordship, you had premised your submission by explaining that the Constitution provides specific guidelines regarding judicial authority over parliamentary vacancies. Citing Article 130 clauses 1 and 2, you categorically stated the legal principle verba generalia specialibus non derogant, meaning that general provisions should not override specific ones.

Accordingly, Article 130 offers general provisions, but the Constitution explicitly designates the High Court to handle matters regarding vacant seats in Parliament under Article 99(1).

That established, the Supreme Court flagrantly disregarded the very Constitution which bars them from interfering in the matter of parliamentary vacancy.

They proceeded to rule on a matter that they did not have original jurisdiction whatsoever. This was not only a violation of the Constitution but also an affront to the separation of powers which propels the rule of law.

Your Lordship, you have stated after the ruling that the Speaker of Parliament must respect the decision of the Supreme Court and that he risks a ten-year jail term if he disregards it.

This is in reference to Article 2(5) of the Constitution, 1992 whish states that, “A person convicted of a high crime under clause (4) of this article shall

• be liable to imprisonment not exceeding ten years without the option of a fine; and
•  not be eligible for election, or for appointment, to any public office for ten years beginning with the date of the expiration of the term of imprisonment.

The law prevents anyone from benefiting from an offence as espoused in the Latin maxim, ‘ex turpi causa non oritur actio’. Kindly, assist me to comprehend what punishment is to be meted out to the Justices of the Supreme Court whose actions have been in clear encroachment, contravention and violation of the Constitution?

Yours faithfully

NANA FREDUA-AGYEMAN JNR.

Citizen, Republic of Ghana

The issue is straightforward and I will delve into it with a breakdown of analysis.

The Member of Parliament (MP) for Tamale South, Hon. Haruna Iddrisu on the 13^th of October, 2024 stated at a rally in the Tamale North constituency that on Tuesday, 15^th October, 2024, when parliament reconvenes for government business, he will lay before the house, the constitutional provisions under article 97(1) (g) and (h).

He further stated that the effect will result in a swap in the majority and minority caucuses.

The seemingly contentious article 97(1) (g) states, “A member of Parliament shall vacate his (their) seat in Parliament – if he (they) leave(s) the party of which he (they) was (were) a member at the time of his (their) election to Parliament to join another party or seeks to remain in Parliament as an independent member; or

(h) If he (they) was (were) elected a member of Parliament as an independent candidate and joins a political party.” [pronoun and verb revision mine]

Now, let’s analyse, in legislative drafting, whenever, the word ‘shall’ is used, it means the pronouncement is mandatory, compulsory or unavoidable. Hence, the aforementioned article is undoubtedly applicable in that regard. At this juncture, a historical detour is necessary to appreciate the rationale behind the provision in tussle. The constitutional provision was inserted to prevent MPs from switching sides popularly known as ‘cross-carpeting’ during their term in parliament.

It sought to discourage and prevent MPs from betraying the people who voted them into office and the party on whose ticket they sort to be elected.

This was post the 1960 Constitution. In the current case of the four MPs, three are contesting as independent candidates and one is on the ticket of a political party in the upcoming general elections.

This is a clear case of conflict of interest. How can they be part of caucus meetings when they are currently campaigning against the political parties who form these caucuses. This is a recipe for disaster and that is what article 97 seeks to cure.

Some legal analysts have sort to interpret it as a futuristic provision. This is a very flawed position as the matter will be moot rendering the provision useless. The outcome of an election is only known after the election and not based on conjecture or research.

Composition of Parliament

Chapter ten of the Constitution, 1992 captioned, ‘The Legislature’ under article 93(1) makes provision for the composition of parliament. It states, “There shall be a Parliament of Ghana which shall consist of not less than one hundred and forty elected members.”

This means Parliament can only be duly composed by an election of its members; simpliciter. That established, article 97(1) outlines the instances when a seat becomes vacant.

Since sub-clauses (g) and (h) have been already stated, the others will be added. A member of Parliament shall vacate his seat in Parliament -(a) upon a dissolution of Parliament; or

(b) if he is elected as Speaker of Parliament; or

(c) if he is absent, without the permission in writing of the Speaker and he is unable to offer a reasonable explanation to the Parliamentary Committee on Privileges from fifteen sittings of a meeting of Parliament during any period that Parliament has been summoned to meet and continues to meet; or

(d) if he is expelled from parliament after having been found guilty of contempt of Parliament by a committee of Parliament; or

(e) if any circumstances arise such that, if he were not a member of Parliament, would cause him to be disqualified or ineligible for election, under article 94 of this Constitution; or

(f) if he resigns from office as a member of Parliament by writing under his hand addressed to the Speaker;

It is important to note that the Constitution does not task any person or group of persons to report an MP who falls within the scope of article 97(1)(g) and (h).

The prospective vacancy does not have to inure to the benefit of anyone in order to report or draw the attention of parliament; any Ghanaian can do so.

It is incumbent on the member so affected to honourably vacate the seat, if the title of ‘Honourable’ is anything to go by. It is akin to a strict liability offence like violating a red light in traffic. No explanation is needed afterwards; the vacation is automatic.

Jurisdiction of the Court

Consequently, when a parliamentary seat becomes vacant and there is a contention, a suit should be made at the High Court since it has original jurisdiction per the Constitution.

Article 99(1) states unequivocally, “The High Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any question whether –

(a) a person has been validly elected as a member of Parliament or the seat of a member has become vacant; or

(b) a person has been validly elected as a Speaker of Parliament or, having been so elected, has vacated the office of Speaker.

(2) A person aggrieved by the determination of the High Court under this article may appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal is empowered as the final forum for appeal. The Supreme Court is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution as a forum to settle any dispute that may so arise in the event of a parliamentary vacancy.

Hence the apex court lacked the locus to entertain any suit thereof. It simply does not have the jurisdiction.

Also, a stay of execution is granted after a court order or ruling is being appealed or contested. The Supreme Court did not give any order or ruling to Parliament to be stayed.

Composition of Parliament (After Vacancy)

As stated under article 93(1) above, parliament can only be duly composed by an election.

Hence, under article 112(5), “Whenever a vacancy occurs in Parliament, the Clerk to Parliament shall notify the Electoral commission in writing within seven days after the vacancy occurred, and a by-election shall be held within thirty days after the vacancy occurred.”

This is after the vacancy is determined without opposition. However, 112(6) stipulates, “Notwithstanding clause (5) of this article, a by-election shall not be held within three months before the holding of a general election.”

Separation of Powers

In the case of Tuffuor v Attorney-General [1980] GLR 637, the Supreme Court ruled inter alia that, once Parliament has completed its business, it is considered final.

The court upheld this objection, reasoning that the judiciary is not empowered to question parliamentary proceedings. This is referred to as non-justiciable political questions in constitutional law.

In conclusion, the Speaker of Parliament only gave effect to the obvious on the 17^th October, 2024, based on the notice of polls released by the Electoral Commission (EC) ahead of the 2024 general elections.

To have entertained the suit in the first place and secondly adjudicate on it with such alacrity and exuberance as manifested is worrisome and questionable.

In the wording of their unwarranted interference, it is evidential the Supreme Court acted unconstitutionally.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin’s declaration of vacant seats in Parliament was unconstitutional and could not stand.

The ruling has sparked widespread debate among the general public, particularly among the political elite. Some argue that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over Parliament, while others believe the Court’s decision must be accepted.

On his part, Mr. Avoka, a leading member of the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC), maintains that the Speaker’s declaration is constitutional, as the law is clear on what is required to declare a seat vacant.

He explained that Article 97 of the Constitution states that a seat can be declared vacant if the seat holder (MP) changes party allegiance.

“You are elected by the sovereign people on a particular party ticket or as an independent candidate to Parliament for the 8th Parliament, and then, while Parliament is still in progress, you file your nomination, abandoning the party that brought you to Parliament to join another party. We are talking about now,” he said.

He continued, “By virtue of that, you have separated from the party that brought you to Parliament; you have changed your status and, therefore, you have crossed the carpet. As per the provision of the Constitution, automatically, you lose your seat.”

He added, “Article 97 is intended to be declared by the Speaker. It doesn’t require constitutional interpretation; it is very clear that if you were elected to Parliament on a party ticket and then decide to file a nomination for another party or as an independent candidate, you automatically separate yourself from your party. Simple. It doesn’t need interpretation.”

The Zebila MP further argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling is unacceptable and that MPs are awaiting formal notification from the Speaker to inform the House of the verdict, after which they will decide their next course of action.

In October, the Speaker declared four parliamentary seats vacant after the MPs in question decided to run in the upcoming elections as independent candidates.

However, the Majority Leader of the House, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, filed a lawsuit at the Supreme Court, challenging the declaration and arguing that it could not stand.

Tuesday’s verdict means that the NPP will continue to hold a majority in the 8th Parliament until the new Parliament is formed in January 2025.

ALSO READ:

• Supreme Court rules on vacant seats case
• High Court should’ve handled vacant seats case – Justice Atuguba

• NPP did not anticipate Supreme Court’s decision on vacant seats – Frank Davies

In a 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, ruled that the Speaker’s declaration was unconstitutional and could not stand.

In an interview on Joy News’ PM Express, Mr. Davies stated that the Speaker of Parliament had been given ample opportunity to defend the legality of the declaration in court but did not file a defense.

“The Speaker was given the opportunity to present their statement of case before the court. They didn’t do that. Do you think the judges should have waited for the Speaker indefinitely?” he questioned, implying that the court had proceeded fairly under the circumstances.

Mr. Davies explained that the Supreme Court ruling was based on the merits of the case and not on assumptions.

“It’s wrong to say that it was anticipated,” he said, underscoring that a split decision on the panel, with two judges dissenting, showed the complexity of the legal issue.

“Even without them filing a statement of the case, five other justices held that the interpretation was not in favor of the Speaker. Two of the judges dissented; what are we going to say about them too?” he added, highlighting the independence and diversity of judicial opinion.

The decision’s split underscores the nuanced legal arguments considered by the Supreme Court.

Mr. Davies pointed out that the dissenting justices offered differing views despite the Speaker’s lack of defense filing, reinforcing that the ruling could not be construed as predictable or foregone.

Mr. Davies urged the public to appreciate the judicial process and respect the decision of the court, noting that the ruling reflects the careful deliberation of the Supreme Court justices.

“This judgment is a clear representation of judicial independence and underscores the commitment of our courts to uphold the Constitution, even in complex cases.”

ALSO READ:

• Respect Supreme court ruling on vacant seats – AG to Parliament

• We expect Bagbin, NDC MPs to comply with Supreme Court ruling – Afenyo-Markin

In response to the Supreme Court’s recent 5-2 ruling deeming the Speaker of Parliament’s declaration unconstitutional, he raised questions about complaints that the Speaker did not file a defense.

Reflecting on the legal process leading to the ruling, Mr. Tameklo questioned the Attorney General’s initial arguments regarding the Speaker’s representation.

“If my memory serves me right, in the last hearing, the Attorney General sought to create the impression that Thaddeus Sory, the Speaker’s lawyer, lacked proper authority to represent the Speaker,” he told Joy News’ PM Express on Tuesday.

He added that Mr. Dame even argued that, in constitutional cases, he himself should be the one defending the action.

“So if the Attorney General, by coincidence or otherwise, has been given what he wished for, why the complaint?” he asked, suggesting that Dame’s stance on the Speaker’s legal representation aligned with the outcome.

Mr. Tameklo elaborated that the Supreme Court, by interpreting the Constitution, was not bound by the arguments presented in written submissions.

“The fundamental question is, is the Supreme Court bound by the written arguments of the parties? The court has consistently stated that they are not bound by these arguments,” he stated.

He emphasized that the Supreme Court is mandated to uphold the Constitution, and while legal submissions serve to support this process, they do not dictate the court’s ultimate interpretation.

In Mr. Tameklo’s view, the Attorney General’s insistence on having authority in constitutional matters involving the Speaker appears to have influenced the proceedings.

“The Attorney General argued that the Public Procurement Authority (PPA) approval was required and questioned Mr. Sory’s standing to represent the Speaker. That was his position, so, in essence, he got his wish,” Mr. Tameklo noted, suggesting that any concerns Mr. Dame might raise about the Speaker’s failure to file a defense now seem misplaced.

The NDC lawyer pointed out that constitutional cases should prioritize substantive issues over procedural or representational disputes, especially in matters of national significance.

He stated that the ruling, regardless of differing opinions, stands as the court’s independent interpretation of the Constitution, aimed at maintaining democratic integrity.

“The Supreme Court’s role is to interpret the Constitution, not to be bound by party submissions. Our submissions only assist, not determine, the final ruling,” he said, reaffirming his respect for the judicial process.

The decision, he argued, reinforces the need for clarity on the roles and limits of both Parliament and the Executive to prevent similar conflicts in the future.

ALSO READ:

• Respect Supreme court ruling on vacant seats – AG to Parliament

• NPP must go to Mfantsipim for refresher course – Edudzi [Audio]

He noted that, following the Supreme Court’s decision, the four affected Members of Parliament are entitled to return to Parliament and participate in legislative proceedings.

“In the face of this decision, he is bound by the decision of the Supreme Court,” he said in an exclusive interview with JoyNews on Tuesday, November 12.

In a 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Speaker’s declaration was unconstitutional, with Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo affirming on November 12, 2024, that the declaration could not stand.

Justice Atuguba explained that compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling is mandatory, warning that failure to adhere could lead to contempt charges.

He highlighted that such contempt is a serious offense, carrying a potential prison sentence of up to 10 years without the option of a fine.

He added that it goes along with a disqualification from holding public office for a decade.

“It is not necessarily 10 years, you must just suffer a term of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years. Not only that, 10 years disqualification of holding public office and if you are a president, you are liable to removal,” he said.

While Mr Atuguba insists the Speaker must comply with the ruling, South Dayi MP Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor maintains that Parliament itself must formally endorse any Supreme Court decision.

He argued that implementation requires the involvement of all 275 Members of Parliament.

Speaking to JoyNews, Mr Dafeamekpor stated that Parliament, as a collective body, must deliberate and decide how to enact the Supreme Court’s directive, asserting that it cannot proceed solely on the basis of a court ruling.

ALSO READ:

• Respect Supreme court ruling on vacant seats – AG to Parliament

• Learn to respect the authority of the Supreme Court – KT Hammond to Speaker

The Effutu MP has asserted that the Constitution has prevailed through the ruling of the Apex Court, and it is binding.

Mr. Afenyo-Markin made these remarks on Tuesday, November 12, after the Court ruled on the controversial case.

“We expect our colleagues, including Mr. Speaker, to respect the outcome of this case so we can move on as a nation. In West Africa and Africa as a whole, all we have is our democracy, and Ghana shines in the eyes of the people in terms of democracy.

“This is another feat we have achieved, and we must celebrate it. It is a matter of constitutional interpretation, and we should all respect it and move on,” he told journalists.

The Court, by a 5-2 majority decision, upheld the suit filed by Mr. Afenyo-Markin, challenging Speaker Bagbin’s declaration on October 17.

The seven-member panel, led by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, held that the Speaker’s declaration was unconstitutional.

ALSO READ:

• Vacant Seat: Speaker’s lawyers absent as Supreme Court defers ruling
• Supreme Court rules on vacant seats case

In a 5-2 majority decision on Tuesday, November 12, 2024, the court ruled that the declaration was unconstitutional.

The seven-member panel, led by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, therefore delivered a ruling in favour of the Efutu MP, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, who was the plaintiff.

Chief Justice Torkornoo, however, noted that a detailed explanation of the ruling would be provided at the Registrar’s office by Wednesday, November 13, 2024.

“By court in a majority decision of five two, Lovelace Johnson JSC and Ahmadu Tanko JSC dissenting on the issue of jurisdiction, the plaintiff’s action succeeds the full reasons and orders of the court shall be filed with the registrar by close of date, tomorrow, 13th, November 2024 the is the judgment of the court,” the Chief Justice announced.

ALSO READ:

• I believe in the supremacy of the Constitution, not the Judiciary or Supreme Court…

• Perception issues affecting the Supreme Court – Nii Armah Addy

The Apex Court was scheduled to rule on the case on Monday, but when it was called, Speaker Alban Bagbin’s lawyers had not filed any legal documents, and there was no legal representation present.

The absence followed concerns raised by the Attorney-General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, about the legality of Thaddeus Sory’s continued representation of the Speaker.

The Attorney-General argued that it was improper because the Public Procurement Authority (PPA) had not approved the engagement.

On October 17, 2024, Speaker Bagbin declared four seats vacant due to the decision of the Members of Parliament (MPs), citing that the MPs had violated constitutional requirements by switching their allegiance ahead of the upcoming election.

ALSO READ:

• Vacant Seat: Speaker’s lawyers absent as Supreme Court defers ruling

• I did not go to the Supreme Court in bad faith – Afenyo-Markin

During a gathering with the clergy in Kumasi on Monday, November 11, Mahama highlighted the importance of dialogue and negotiation in addressing political disputes, advocating for a more cooperative approach for the benefit of all parties involved.

Mahama’s remarks come amid a legal dispute over Speaker Alban Bagbin’s decision to declare four parliamentary seats vacant. This declaration, citing alleged constitutional violations by certain Members of Parliament, has ignited widespread debate.

The Supreme Court has since intervened, temporarily suspending Speaker Bagbin’s ruling, with a final decision expected on Tuesday, November 12, 2024.

Mahama emphasized that issues like these are best addressed politically rather than legally.

“I believe this is a matter we can resolve politically. The solution is not legal. The Supreme Court may issue a ruling, but Parliament, as a separate arm of government, could resist it. This situation calls for a political solution, and it rests on the president to lead this process.

“If I were president, I would have withdrawn the case from the Supreme Court and convened both sides, their leaders, the Council of State, and the Speaker to resolve the matter. I believe this approach would bring a resolution,” he stated.

READ ALSO:

• Amenfi Central: Sekondi High Court lifts injunction on Joana Gyan Cudjoe’s candidacy
• Parliament: I will never take Minority leader’s seat – Afenyo-Markin
• 2024 Polls: Alan pledges constitutional reforms to empower chiefs

His remarks came on Monday, November 11, outside the Supreme Court premises, following a hearing in which the apex court considered arguments from both plaintiffs and the Attorney-General regarding the issue of vacant parliamentary seats.

Addressing the media, Afenyo-Markin emphasized the importance of tolerance in parliamentary leadership, particularly for someone in the Speaker’s position.

He expressed concern that Speaker Bagbin should be open to hearing and considering divergent views rather than dismissing them.

“The Speaker should not see himself as a king or an emperor,” Afenyo-Markin remarked, stressing that Bagbin’s role necessitates a fair approach to the various voices within Parliament.

Mr. Afenyo-Markin’s comments follow recent tensions in the legislative house, where divisions between the NPP and the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC) have been pronounced.

According to him, a Speaker who is receptive to differing opinions is essential for ensuring that Parliament operates smoothly and in line with democratic principles.

His statements underscore the NPP’s belief that Speaker Bagbin’s approach to certain parliamentary issues has been less than accommodating.

The Majority Leader called on Speaker Bagbin to lead by example, fostering an environment where both ruling and opposition members feel that their voices are valued and respected.

He concluded that Parliament functions best when the Speaker recognizes the diverse views of its members and serves as a neutral arbiter rather than a figure of authority immune to challenge.

ALSO READ:

• Vacant Seat: Speaker’s lawyers absent as Supreme Court defers ruling

• Bagbin is the worst Speaker we’ve ever had – Miracles Aboagye

The case, which seeks to prevent the removal of four MPs due to their decision to cross carpets in the upcoming December 7 election, was adjourned on October 30.

Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo had previously instructed the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, to submit relevant documents by Wednesday, November 6.

This followed a request by the Speaker’s lawyer, Thaddeus Sory, for additional time to consult with the Speaker and gather the necessary instructions.

However, during the hearing on Monday, November 11, Speaker Bagbin’s lawyers did not file any legal documents, and there was no legal representation present.

The seven-member panel, presided over by Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, proceeded to hear the case because the plaintiff, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, and the Attorney-General (the second defendant) had both filed their processes.

The Apex Court is expected to hear the case and deliver its ruling on Tuesday, November 12. Chief Justice Torkornoo announced the date after hearing both sides, indicating that the court is prepared to provide clarity on the matter.

The Attorney-General expressed strong disapproval of the Speaker’s legal team’s actions, particularly criticizing Thaddeus Sory for his absence. The Attorney-General argued that Mr. Sory’s failure to appear in court or submit the required documents demonstrated a lack of respect for the judicial process.

ALSO READ:

• NPP Caucus to cite Speaker Bagbin for contempt

• I did not go to the Supreme Court in bad faith – Afenyo-Markin

Addressing the media on Wednesday, Speaker Bagbin urged calm, advising that the system be allowed to function properly.

Amid criticisms over the adjournment of proceedings, the Speaker called for an end to panic and fear-mongering, emphasizing that the House is not out of service.

“Stop pressing the panic buttons and fear-mongering. Let the system work,” he advised.

Drawing on his over 30 years of experience in parliamentary service and more than 40 years in public service, the Speaker assured that he would not lead the third arm of government into disarray. He expressed his desire to leave Parliament as strong as it was when he assumed office.

His comments come after Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, during a Supreme Court sitting on Wednesday, October 30, expressed her concerns over the recent parliamentary impasse. With parliamentary sittings suspended at that time, she noted that the situation could lead to a constitutional crisis.

Meanwhile, Parliament is expected to reconvene on Thursday, November 7, 2024.

ALSO READ:

• I remain the Majority Chief Whip in parliament – Kwame Agbodza

• Speaker summons Parliament to reconvene on November 7

He explained that, in his view, there is currently no clear indication that Parliament has complied with the Supreme Court’s ruling.

In an interview on JoyNews’ Newsfile on Saturday, November 2, he stated that the Speaker should have announced a reversal of his ruling, affirming that the status quo had been maintained.

“… The simple thing that would have calmed everything down would have been for the Speaker to say, ‘I disagree with you [Supreme Court] but I respect it.’ As far as I am concerned, the Speaker has not done what I believe would have led to greater peace,” he said.

“I want to hear the Speaker communicate his acceptance and indicate that he does not agree. I think this is necessary,” he added.

He noted that this would help ensure peace and calmness within the leadership.

“I have heard people, even some angrily, saying they would defend their newly won majority. I have heard people say they are going to use their majority to repel laws, and you think, under those circumstances, we should assume that they are going to handle everything properly? Do you want there to be a scuffle before they go back to the Supreme Court for another ruling?”

His comments follow the Supreme Court issuing a stay of execution on Speaker Bagbin’s ruling, which had declared four parliamentary seats vacant.

Parliament was, in essence, instructed to recognize and allow the four MPs to fully represent their constituencies and carry out their official duties.

When Parliament reconvened, the Speaker acknowledged the Supreme Court ruling but did not comment on it.

The House was subsequently adjourned due to insufficient numbers to take a decision after the NPP Caucus staged a walkout when their seats were occupied by the NDC Caucus.

Mr. Bentil asserted that the Supreme Court ruling must be respected, even if an individual disagrees with it.

He added that, even if the Speaker disagrees with the ruling, it is crucial not to create the impression that Supreme Court decisions are disregarded.

Meanwhile, the Speaker filed an application for the Supreme Court to overturn its ruling that suspended his declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacant, but it was rejected.

The Supreme Court maintained that its earlier ruling was appropriate, stating that the Speaker’s appeal was without merit.

“We have considered the application, and we have concluded that the grounds supporting the application have no merit,” the Chief Justice stated.

ALSO READ:

• A-G accuses Speaker Bagbin of flouting PPA Act in hiring Thaddeus Sory as parliamentary…

• Respect for Supreme Court decisions isn’t optional – Senyo Hosi cautions Speaker

The Court stayed the execution of the Speaker’s ruling, which was supposed to render the said Members of Parliament’s seats vacant for going independent ahead of the general election.

According to Godfred Yeboah Dame, his office is the appropriate entity to represent public officeholders in such matters. He explained that, as a public office holder, it is his mandate to represent the Speaker: “The Constitution designates the Attorney General as the defendant in all actions involving the government, including its parliamentary arm,” he stated.

The AG further clarified, “The first defendant (the Speaker) is not even a proper party to the proceedings before the court, and his absence will not impede the court’s ability to proceed with the hearing of the matter.” He added, “It is even improper for the first defendant to be joined in this action; the proper defendant should solely be the Attorney General.”

The AG’s remarks followed the Speaker’s intention to hire personal counsel for the case. He further argued that the case could have been adjudicated without the defendant’s counsel.

Earlier today, the Supreme Court dismissed an application by Alban Bagbin, who sought to overturn the Court’s ruling that suspended his declaration regarding the said parliamentarians.

This follows an initial suit filed by Effutu MP Alexander Afenyo-Markin, challenging the Speaker’s declaration. The Speaker’s legal team argued that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction in this case, among other grounds canvassed in court.

At the end of the day, the Supreme Court adjourned the substantive case to November 11. Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo has also given the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, until Wednesday, November 6, to file documents.

ALSO READ:

• We’re living in a country where Parliament isn’t sitting; what’s going on? – Chief…

• Parliamentary standoff requires dialogue for resolution – Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo has also given the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin until Wednesday, November 6, to file documents.

This was after the Speaker’s lawyer, Thaddeus Sory asked for more time to confer with the Speaker and receive his instructions to help inform when the substantive case will be heard.

Today, the Attorney General urged the Court to discount the Speaker from the case as the AG’s office was in charge of handling public servants’ cases which have to do with constitutional interpretation issues.

On the back of this argument, Godfred Dame prayed the court to go ahead and interpret the matter.

Earlier today, the Supreme Court dismissed an application by Alban Bagbin, who sought to overturn the Court’s ruling that suspended his declaration about the said parliamentarians.

This follows an initial suit filed by Effutu MP Alexander Afenyo-Markin, challenging the Speaker’s declaration.

The Speaker’s legal team argued that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction in this case, among other grounds canvassed in court.

However, after hearing arguments from all parties, including the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, the Supreme Court maintained that its earlier ruling was appropriate, stating that the Speaker’s appeal was without merit.

“We have considered the application, and we have come to the conclusion that the grounds supporting the application have no merit,” the Chief Justice stated.

Prior to this decision, the Court also dismissed an objection raised by Thaddeus Sory, counsel for the Speaker, regarding the empaneling of Justice Ernest Gaewu.

ALSO READ:

• Vacant seat: Supreme Court rejects Speaker’s application to set aside earlier ruling

• Vacant seats hearing: Supreme Court dismisses request for judge’s recusal

The dismissal was issued on Wednesday, October 30, following arguments presented by Thaddeus Sory, a lawyer for the Speaker, who contended that Justice Gaewu’s prior political ties posed a conflict of interest.

Mr Sory’s argument hinged on Gaewu’s past role as a parliamentary candidate for the New Patriotic Party (NPP), the current ruling party in Ghana, suggesting that his previous affiliations might influence his decisions on the case at hand.

Lawyers representing Speaker Bagbin have asked Justice Gaewu to recuse himself from a case that challenges the Speaker’s recent decision to declare certain parliamentary seats vacant.

This request was made to ensure impartiality in the proceedings, as the Speaker of Parliament’s office argued that Justice Gaewu’s ties to the NPP could influence his judgment.

They noted that his previous political candidacy could create potential bias in cases involving decisions from Parliament, which requires a fair and balanced judicial approach.

The Supreme Court commenced hearings on the case on Wednesday, October 30, as Speaker Bagbin seeks to overturn the Court’s earlier ruling.

This prior decision granted a stay of execution on Bagbin’s declarations of certain parliamentary seats as vacant, which could affect parliamentary representation and political dynamics within the legislative body.

The Speaker’s legal team maintains that a fair trial requires an impartial panel free of political associations that could affect the outcome.

Thaddeus Sory, representing the Speaker, emphasized the relevance of Justice Gaewu’s political past, stating, “He was known to be associated with New Patriotic Party (NPP) and in fact he was a parliamentary candidate in one of their constituencies in the Volta Region.”

Despite these objections, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of maintaining Justice Gaewu on the bench for the proceedings, setting the stage for a closely-watched legal battle with potential implications for parliamentary integrity and judicial independence in Ghana.

ALSO READ:

• Bagbin rejects Supreme Court writ on vacant seats ruling, returns documents
• Vacant seats: Speaker wants judge to recuse himself

Mr. Afenyo-Markin’s suit followed Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin’s decision to declare four parliamentary seats vacant, a move based on these constitutional clauses.

During an appearance on Good Morning Ghana on October 23, 2024, Kwesi Pratt argued that Afenyo-Markin’s action was unnecessary.

He said the wording of the constitution is clear enough for anyone who can read to understand, emphasizing that the affected MPs were justifiably removed from Parliament.

“If we refer to the constitution, which provides the legal framework for parliamentary conduct, it’s so clear that this demand for Supreme Court interpretation is nonsensical,” Pratt remarked. “The provisions are so clear that even children could read and understand them.”

Mr. Pratt said Article 97(g) and (h), which state that an MP loses their seat if they leave the party on whose ticket they were elected or attempt to remain in Parliament as an independent after joining a different party.

He questioned why anyone would need further interpretation, calling it a “dunce” move to seek clarification.

He also noted that the NPP’s constitution states that party members who contest elections as independents or against the party’s candidates are no longer members.

In response, NPP MP for Anyaa Sowutuom, Dr. Dickson Adomako Kissi, who was also on the show, argued that Article 97 only applies when a legislator attempts to change their political affiliation within the same Parliament.

He asked whether the provision applied to future parliamentary terms, but Pratt rejected this interpretation.

Background:

On October 22, 2024, Speaker Bagbin adjourned Parliament indefinitely, shortly after the House resumed from recess. Although the House had enough members to form a quorum, the numbers were insufficient to make decisions due to a boycott by NPP MPs. This standoff emerged after Bagbin’s declaration of four seats as vacant, which caused a shift in parliamentary majority to the National Democratic Congress (NDC).

The Supreme Court of Ghana, however, issued a stay on Bagbin’s ruling on October 18, 2024, pending further legal review. This decision followed a challenge by the NPP, leading to a suspension of the Speaker’s ruling.

Speaker Bagbin had declared the seats of Cynthia Morrison (Agona West), Kwadjo Asante (Suhum), Andrew Amoako Asiamah (Fomena), and Peter Kwakye Ackah (Amenfi Central) vacant due to their decision to contest the upcoming December 2024 elections as independent candidates or under a different party. The NDC supports Bagbin’s ruling, while the NPP stands by the Supreme Court’s stay order.

ALSO READ:

Kasoa ritual killing: 18-year-old suspect sentenced to life imprisonment

Subin MP slams Gabby Otchere-Darko’s ‘Prime Minister’ tag [Listen]

Bawumia to offer duty-free vehicles under 1.8L for nurses – NAPO

In his view, the standoff shouldn’t have been a matter for the Apex Court as the House could have amicably resolved it.

In an interview on Asempa FM’s Ekosii Sen programme Wednesday, Mr Akandoh said the Efuttu MP, Alexander Afenyo-Markin made a hasty decision to go to court.

“We need to think through issues so we don’t clash the arms of government as we are doing now because we are putting the court in a tight corner and the Supreme Court also didn’t behave well.

“The court is not there for only one group of people but for all of us so it has to instil public confidence.  How would they constitute a panel to rule on an exparte application when some lawyers will even tell you it is strange for the Supreme Court to sit on Friday? What was the rush,” he questioned.

He also urged Mr Afenyo-Markin to exercise restraint as a leader, stating that, he needs to be able to collaborate effectively with members of the House.

“You must always ask yourself what you want and seek to achieve. In this case, it is about pushing government business. So this brouhaha doesn’t make sense. You can’t tell what Afenyo-Markin is seeking to worry himself this much.

“As a leader, your actions and inactions must promote government business, so you must not flex your muscle. You need to work closely with the speaker,” he admonished.

ALSO READ:

• Parliament: NPP commends Majority for upholding rule of law

• Supreme Court ruled on unapproved parliamentary proceedings – Murtala Mohammed

This ruling, he hopes, will resolve the ongoing tensions and restore normalcy in Parliament.

“The court process will start from Friday, and if you look at the order from the Supreme Court, it ordered the Speaker and the Parliament as an institution to respond to the order.

“We believe that before the 7 days will elapse, the court will do justice to whatever the NDC is claiming. We cannot force the court, but we’re praying that they will do deal with the matter as soon as practicable,” he stated.

ALSO READ:

• NDC MPs to challenge NPP’s motion to recall Parliament in court

• Parliamentary conflicts should be resolved politically, not in court – Dr Srem-Sai

In an interview on PM Express on October 22, he criticised the entrenched political rivalry in Parliament, which he said had stymied progress on key government business.

“The NPP caucus needs to climb down from their high horse and realise that politics should not be played in terms of a zero-sum mentality. It should be a positive sum mentality,” he stated.

His comments come in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling to stay Speaker Bagbin’s decision to declare four parliamentary seats vacant.

The ongoing legal tussle has intensified the power struggle between the NPP and NDC, raising concerns about how Parliament can function effectively.

Dr Aidoo stated that for government business to move forward, the ruling party must be willing to negotiate with the opposition.

“If the government wants to do business, it can come to Parliament. Negotiation is part of politics,” he added, suggesting that collaboration is the only way to break the current impasse.

Dr Aidoo also took aim at the attitude of NPP Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, whom he described as displaying a fascist-like mindset.

“Only recently, he made a Freudian slip about his far-right protest, chastising a journalist,” which he believes doesn’t foster cooperation.

He noted that if the NPP continues to push for dominance in Parliament without considering compromise, the government will suffer setbacks in getting key legislation passed.

“The government loses more in this scenario. There’s no reason why they can’t have their bills passed if they adopt an attitude of compromise and cooperation,” Dr Aidoo warned.

The former Head of the Policy Evaluation and Oversight Unit at the presidency, Dr Tony Aidoo, has called for a shift in the mindset of Ghana’s political actors, urging government and the opposition to adopt a “positive sum mentality” in Parliament to advance the country’s development.

In an interview on PM Express on October 22, he criticised the entrenched political rivalry in Parliament, which he said had stymied progress on key government business.

“The NPP caucus needs to climb down from their high horse and realise that politics should not be played in terms of a zero-sum mentality. It should be a positive sum mentality,” he stated.

His comments come in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling to stay Speaker Bagbin’s decision to declare four parliamentary seats vacant.

The ongoing legal tussle has intensified the power struggle between the NPP and NDC, raising concerns about how Parliament can function effectively.

Dr Aidoo stated that for government business to move forward, the ruling party must be willing to negotiate with the opposition.

“If the government wants to do business, it can come to Parliament. Negotiation is part of politics,” he added, suggesting that collaboration is the only way to break the current impasse.

Dr Aidoo also took aim at the attitude of NPP Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, whom he described as displaying a fascist-like mindset.

“Only recently, he made a Freudian slip about his far-right protest, chastising a journalist,” which he believes doesn’t foster cooperation.

He noted that if the NPP continues to push for dominance in Parliament without considering compromise, the government will suffer setbacks in getting key legislation passed.

“The government loses more in this scenario. There’s no reason why they can’t have their bills passed if they adopt an attitude of compromise and cooperation,” Dr Aidoo warned.

ALSO READ:

• Parliamentary seat saga: Supreme Court mustn’t be a ‘hatchet agent’ – Tony Aidoo

• Diplomacy is key – Speaker Bagbin’s handling of Parliament praised by Tony Aidoo

Bolgatanga East MP, Dr Dominic Ayine disclosed this while addressing journalists in parliament.

The former Deputy Attorney General noted this was information he had picked from reliable sources.

Dr Ayine insisted that, so far as the National Democratic Congress (NDC) MPs were concerned, they were still the Majority.

“Mr Speaker must formally inform the House if he intends to comply with the Supreme Court’s directive.

“As it stands, we are not in possession of any official information that the Speaker has complied with the court order. So in our view, the status quo must remain,” he said.

The Supreme Court’s ruling and the Speaker’s decision to challenge it may shape the dynamics of the current parliamentary session.

This standoff raises concerns over the balance of power between the judiciary and the legislative arm of government, with some analysts warning of potential disruptions to parliamentary business.

ALSO READ:

• Parliament’s ‘vacant seats’ controversy all about ego- Dr Draman

• Parliament Brouhaha: Speaker will not cause chaos – George Amoh

Speaking on the AM Show with Benjamin Akakpo on Tuesday, October 22, 2024, Dr Rasheed expressed the view that the Members of Parliament (MPs) are more interested in settling scores than resolving the challenge facing the house.

“It’s all about ego, I was on your programme on (Joy News) few days ago and I heard one of your colleagues called Hon. Afenyo-Markin as MP of Efutu and he (Afenyo-Markin) says address me properly because I am the Majority Leader. This morning I heard Hon Agbodza (MP for Adaklu) being addressed as Minority Chief Whip and he (Agbodza) told the journalist, ‘please address me properly, I am the Majority Chief Whip so right there I think that (ego) is what is at play”.

He added that beyond the ego, the MPs are also trying to leave a legacy in the Fourth Republic, explaining that “Beyond that, I think it’s also about the issue of legacy, every group trying to project itself. We’ve heard the NDC say that we’re going to repeal this, we’re going to repeal that and the NPP would say we’re going to guard you, this is our record, this is our legacy”.

Dr. Rasheed prayed that The Speaker would listen to the good advice he would be given by Ghanaians and suggested that The Speaker should “walk into the chamber and give one simple statement” that would prevent any unforeseen mayhem.

ALSO READ:

• Parliament Brouhaha: Speaker will not cause chaos – George Amoh

• Parliament debunks Akufo-Addo’s meeting with Bagbin to negotiate settlement

Taking to Facebook, Mr Bagbin wrote, “God bless our homeland Ghana and make it great and strong, beyond any single individual or institution.”

Speaker Bagbin on Thursday declared four seats vacant following a petition by Tamale South MP and former Minority Leader, Haruna Iddrisu.

The application to stay the Speaker’s decision was filed by New Patriotic Party (NPP) Members of Parliament (MPs).

Led by Majority Leader and Effutu MP, they sought the Court’s intervention to halt the enforcement of the ruling that would have affected three of their colleagues and one from the National Democratic Congress (NDC).

The application was filed ex parte, meaning that neither Speaker Bagbin nor Parliament was joined to the case.

This allowed the Court to consider the NPP MPs’ request without requiring the participation or response of the Speaker or other parliamentary authorities at this stage.

But Dr Arthur said the Apex Court was wrong in not hearing from the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin’s lawyers or parliament at large.

The Political activist said this in an interview on Adom FM’s morning show Dwaso Nsem, on Monday.

He asserted that, the Supreme Court in recent times has been involved in politics and accommodating to President Akufo-Addo and the New Patriotic Party(NPP).

“Everyone knows that with the time left, a by election wasn’t possible so it means that if the ruling of the Speaker had been enforced, it would altered Parliament but there were the Supreme Court could have handled the issue out of respect.

“The court is dealing with parliament and not an individual so they could have scheduled a hearing for Monday for the lawyers of both parties to make their case,” he said.

The case was heard by a panel of Supreme Court justices presided over by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo.

Other members of the panel included Justice Mariama Owusu, Justice Kwame Adibu Asiedu, Justice Ernest Yao Gaewu, and Justice Yaw Darko Asare, who together delivered the ruling to stay the Speaker’s decision.

ALSO READ:

• ‘I smell a rat’ – Arthur Kennedy on CJ’s request on new appointments to…

• Supreme Court appears to be doing more politics than law – Dr Arthur Kennedy

• Full text: Supreme Court ruling that halted Speaker’s declaration on 4-seats

• There’s nothing to be stayed – Defeamekpor on Supreme Court order on 4 vacant…

This according to him is because the statement was made on a political platform.

In an interview on Adom FM’s morning show Dwaso Nsem, Mr Atta Akyea said the Tamale South MP was carried away by the euphoria of the political campaign.

“I thought it was a joke. I thought it was just a political talk because of the euphoria at where he made the statement. I didn’t think this venal statement would graduate into this controversy,” he stated.

The petition was seeking the declaration of the seats of four MPs vacant over their decision to cross carpets in the upcoming election.

The Tamale South MP invoked Article 97 (1)(g) of the Constitution, which stipulates that an MP must vacate their seat if they abandon the political party under which they were elected, or if they opt to remain in Parliament as an independent candidate.

The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin on Thursday ruled on the petition, declaring the seats vacant.

The declaration made the NDC the Majority while the NPP because Minority to their 136 and 135 seats respectively.

However, the Supreme Court on Friday suspended the Speaker’s declaration.

In a ruling on Friday, a five-member panel, presided over by Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, held that declaration goes against the rights of the affected MPs’ constituents.

ALSO READ:

• NDC MPs will obey Bagbin’s decision, not Supreme Court – Ayariga
• Do Supreme Court justices consider public opinion? – Hannah Tetteh questions recent ruling

The legal practitioner has emphasised that the country is governed by the country and the Supreme Court exists to interpret constitutional issues, hence it must be complied with.

Atta Akyea’s comment comes in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling that stayed the execution of the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin’s declaration, which had rendered four seats vacant.

Despite the Supreme Court’s order, the NDC Parliamentary caucus is insisting on being the majority and has affirmed to occupy the majority position in Parliament on Tuesday, October.

Reacting to this, the former Minister of Works and Housing in an interview on Adom FM’s morning show, Dwaso Nsem said the Minority’s position is unfortunate.

“If we are working with the Constitution, then we must do so effectively. Because if someone is saying the speaker is above the Supreme Court, then we must destroy the Constitution because it is of no importance.

“The Constitution allowed all of us to be in parliament so we are governed by it how can you say you will not abide by what it says?” he questioned.

Listen to Mr Atta Akyea in the video above:

ALSO READ:

• There’s nothing to be stayed – Defeamekpor on Supreme Court order on 4 vacant…
• Full text: Supreme Court ruling that halted Speaker’s declaration on 4-seats

The court was presided over by a five-man panel, comprising Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, presiding, Mariam Owusu, S.K.A Asiedu, E.Y Gaewu, and Y. Darko Asare.

Below are the orders of the Apex Court directing Parliament and the Attorney General to recognise and allow the four affected MPs to duly represent their constituents.

The MPs are to conduct the full scope of the duties of their offices as MP pending the determination of the filed by the Majority Leader and MP for Effutu, Alexander Afenyo-Markin.

The affected MPs were; Madam Cynthia Mamle Morrison, NPP MP for Agona West, Kwadjo Asante, NPP MP for Suhum, Peter Yaw Kwakye-Ackah, NDC MP for Amenfi Central, and Andrew Amoako Asiamah, Independent MP for Fomena and Second Deputy Speaker

Read the full ruling below:

According to him, the Supreme Court erred in its decision to issue a stay of execution on Speaker Bagbin’s declaration.

His comments follow the Supreme Court’s decision on Friday, October 18, which issued a stay of execution on Speaker Bagbin’s declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacant.

The Supreme Court’s ruling directed Parliament to recognise the four MPs in question, allowing them to continue representing their constituencies and perform their official duties.

This directive will remain in effect, not for the 10 days initially requested by the applicants, but until the court delivers its final ruling on the matter.

But speaking on JoyFM’s Top Story on Friday, October 18, Mr Dafeamekpor argued that the legal principles guiding the practice of law in Ghana stipulate that an ex parte order should not remain in effect for more than nine days.

He expressed his disagreement with the Supreme Court’s decision to suspend the Speaker’s declaration until the case is finally resolved.

“What is the Supreme Court staying, what order? There is nothing to stay. This is a non-executable order. The Speaker gave information to Parliament,” he said.

He stated that Speaker Bagbin did not issue a ruling but merely shared information with Parliament based on the petition filed by Tamale South MP, Haruna Iddrisu.

“This is the Speaker’s information to the House so how do you stay such an information,” he asked.

“The person who spoke to the Hosue said this is the information I have for you, so if you are labeling it as a ruling, I don’t know how that can be so labeled. He says this is the information I have that these four Members of Parliament have by their conduct done a,b,c.

“The Speaker has given information to the House then somebody goes to the court and says that this amounts to a certain order and therefore, that order should be stayed. How is this to be stayed, with all due respect to the court” he questioned.

Mr Dafeamekpor further asserted that the court had made a legal error, stressing that the Speaker’s communication was not subject to execution.

ALSO READ:

• Supreme Court stays Speaker’s ruling ousting 4 MPs from Parliament
• There is constitutional crisis – Dr Ayine on Supreme Court order on 4 MPs

According to him, the swift decision by the Court to stay the execution issued barely 24 hours after the Speaker’s announcement, was both unexpected and impressive.

Speaking to JoyNews on Friday, October 18, Justice Abdulai remarked, “It is the most amazing thing I have heard. I didn’t know our courts could work this faster and it is impressive to hear this thing.”

His comments follow the Supreme Court’s stay of execution on Speaker Alban Bagbin’s ruling, which had declared four parliamentary seats vacant.

The Court’s decision mandates Parliament to recognise and allow the four MPs, whose seats were affected, to continue representing their constituencies and perform their duties until the Court issues a final verdict on the matter.

This interim directive will remain in force not for the initially requested 10 days, but until the final judgment is delivered.

The application to stay the Speaker’s decision was filed by New Patriotic Party (NPP) Members of Parliament, who sought the Court’s intervention to halt the enforcement of the ruling that would have affected three of their colleagues and one from the National Democratic Congress (NDC).

The application was filed ex parte, meaning that neither Speaker Bagbin nor Parliament was joined to the case.

This allowed the Court to consider the NPP MPs’ request without requiring the participation or response of the Speaker or other parliamentary authorities at this stage.

In light of this, Justice Abdulai noted that, given the nature of the injunction, it is possible that this status quo could remain in place for the remainder of the current Parliament, adding, “The final decision might never come.”

He noted that the ruling means the NPP caucus retains its status as the Majority in Parliament, with the NDC caucus remaining the Minority.

The Speaker of Parliament, on Thursday, October 17, declared four parliamentary seats vacant, with barely two months to the December elections, following a heated debate in the House sparked by a petition filed by former NDC Minority Leader, Haruna Iddrisu.

The legislators affected by the ruling are the NDC’s Peter Yaw Kwakye Ackah of the Amenfi Central constituency in the Western Region, Andrew Amoako Asiamah of Fomena in the Ashanti Region, Kojo Asante, NPP MP for Suhum in the Eastern Region, and NPP’s Cynthia Morrison of the Agona West constituency.

The ruling meant that Ghana’s hung parliament, which had previously given the governing NPP a slight upper hand as the Majority side, with support from Independent Member of Parliament Andrew Amoako Asiamah, shifted the balance in favour of the opposition NDC.

According to the Speaker’s ruling on Thursday, the NDC now had 136 MPs in the House, while the NPP had 135. Prior to this, the NPP held 138 seats, compared to the NDC’s 137.

However, the Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday, October 18, means that the NPP caucus, which lost its majority status following the Speaker’s declaration, will retain its majority position, while the NDC caucus will continue as the minority in the House.

ALSO READ:

• Supreme Court stays Speaker’s ruling ousting 4 MPs from Parliament
• There is constitutional crisis – Dr Ayine on Supreme Court order on 4 MPs

According to him, Speaker Alban Bagbin was leading Parliament into chaos when he declared the seats vacant on Thursday.

Speaking on Asempa FM Ekosii Sen, programme Friday, the former New Patriotic Party (NPP) Chairman stated that, the order of the Apex Court is to avoid a pandemonium.

“Speaker Bagbin rushed in giving the ruling on the four embattled MPs because he should make it possible to allow MPs to cross carpet. So the Supreme Court’s order is good to uphold parliamentary democracy,” he said.

The NPP MPs led by Alexander Afenyo-Markin filed the application to stay the Speaker’s decision to seek the court’s intervention to halt the enforcement of the ruling that would have affected three of their colleagues and one from the National Democratic Congress (NDC).

The application was filed ex parte, hence did not require the participation or response of the Speaker or other parliamentary authorities.

The case was heard on Friday by a panel of Supreme Court justices, presided over by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo.

Other members of the panel included Justice Mariama Owusu, Justice Kwame Adibu Asiedu, Justice Ernest Yao Gaewu, and Justice Yaw Darko Asare, who together delivered the ruling to stay the Speaker’s decision.

Representing the NPP MPs were lawyers Paa Kwesi Abaidoo and former Attorney General Joe Ghartey.

ALSO READ: 

• NPP MPs only wanted to buy time by taking the case to Supreme Court…
• Supreme Court stays Speaker’s ruling ousting 4 MPs from Parliament

According to the former MP and Deputy Speaker, MPs should be free to make decisions outside the party’s stance.

“There is nothing wrong with cross-carpeting in politics. Anyone is free to join other parties or go independent. Party loyalty cannot remain forever, so allow MPs to make their own decisions,” he said.

Speaker Bagbin on Thursday declared the four seats vacant on the basis that three of the MPs had crossed the carpet to contest as Independent candidates in the upcoming election.

The petition filed by former Minority Leader and Tamale South MP Haruna Iddrisu, stirred significant debate within the chamber.

Cynthia Morrison and Mr Asante are NPP MPs who have filed to contest the 2024 general election as independent candidates.

ALSO READ:

• Prof. Gyampo criticises vacating of MP seats due to cross-carpeting

• This is a sign of victory – Mahama on Speaker’s declaration of 4 seats…

According to him, the order shows there is a constitutional crisis.

“This is a very disturbing development, for them to obtain an ex-parte motion, meaning the parliament was not notified. The order of the Supreme Court means parliament goes back to what it was before the Speaker’s ruling.

“Basically, you have tied the hands of Mr Speaker and Parliament, that shows that it is interfering with the work of legislature. There is a constitutional crisis,” he said in an interview with Accra-based TV3.

In a ruling on Friday, a five-member panel presided over by Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, held that declaration goes against the rights of the affected MPs’ constituents.

It followed an ex parte application filed by the New Patriotic Party (NPP) MPs led by Alexander Kwamena Afenyo-Markin, the Majority Leader in Parliament.

By this decision, the vacant seats have been reinstated.

The court has also ordered Parliament to file its statement of case and memorandum of issues within seven days.

The application to stay the Speaker’s decision was filed by New Patriotic Party (NPP) Members of Parliament, who sought the Court’s intervention to halt the enforcement of the ruling that would have affected three of their colleagues and one from the National Democratic Congress (NDC).

The application was filed ex parte, meaning that neither Speaker Bagbin nor Parliament was joined to the case.

This allowed the Court to consider the NPP MPs’ request without requiring the participation or response of the Speaker or other parliamentary authorities at this stage.

The case was heard by a panel of Supreme Court justices presided over by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo.

Other members of the panel included Justice Mariama Owusu, Justice Kwame Adibu Asiedu, Justice Ernest Yao Gaewu, and Justice Yaw Darko Asare, who together delivered the ruling to stay the Speaker’s decision.

Representing the NPP MPs were lawyers Paa Kwesi Abaidoo and former Attorney General Joe Ghartey.

They successfully argued for the stay, which temporarily halts the Speaker’s ruling pending further legal proceedings. The Court’s decision effectively keeps the four MPs’ seats intact for the time being.

The ruling impacted MPs Cynthia Morrison (Agona West), Kwadjo Asante (Suhum), Peter Kwakye Ackah (Amenfi Central), and Andrew Asiamah (Fomena), who either chose to run as independent candidates or switched party affiliations for the 2024 elections.

As a result, the NDC, previously in the Minority, now claims a majority with 136 seats compared to the governing NPP’s 135 seats, prompting leadership shifts in Parliament.

ALSO READ:

• Full Text: Speaker Bagbin’s ruling on declaration of 4 seats vacant

• Prof. Gyampo criticises vacating of MP seats due to cross-carpeting

The Fellow at the Centre for Democratic Development (CDD) said the ruling sets a dangerous precedent, undermining MPs’ ability to plan their political futures without fear of immediate consequences.

In a post on Facebook, the lawyer warned that if such rulings became more common, it could have a lasting impact on Ghana’s parliamentary system and democratic governance.

Read the full post below:

Now Minority Leader and Effutu MP, Alexander Afenyo-Markin announced this at a press conference on Friday.

Mr Afenyo-Markin stated that, the ruling denies Fomena constituents a representation in Parliament.

“Indeed, I am in touch with honourable Amoako Asiamah and I am happy to even announce to you that he is also filing a separate action as a result of the conduct of Mr. Speaker. Politically, what Mr. Speaker has done is wrong and it doesn’t help democracy,” he said.

Speaker Bagbin on Thursday declared the four seats vacant on the basis that three of the MPs had crossed the carpet to contest as Independent candidates in the upcoming election.

But in Mr Asiamah’s case, he was crossing as an independent candidate to contest on the ticket of the NPP on December 7.

This will be the second time the Fomena seat will be declared vacant with Mr Asiamah as MP.

However, this time around, he risks losing his position as a Deputy Speaker in parliament too.

With three of the NPP’s seats declared vacant, the party is now the Minority in parliament with 135 while the NDC forms the Majority with 136 seats having lost Amenfi Central which has been held by Peter Kwaky-Ackah.

Meanwhile, Mr Afenyo-Markin has since announced that the New Patriotic Party (NPP) caucus would boycott parliamentary proceedings until the Supreme Court makes a ruling on the matter.

ALSO READ:

• Ghanaians react to Speaker’s declaration of 4 seats vacant

• Meet the 4 MPs whose seats have been declared vacant

This follows Speaker Alban Bagbin’s declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacant on Thursday.

According to him, the Speaker did not have the right to make a constitutional interpretation, as that was the mandate of the Supreme Court.

With the case currently before the Apex Court, Mr Afenyo-Markin has said the NPP MPs will await the decision.

Until that is set, the lawmaker has said his side will abstain from parliamentary proceedings until further notice.

“There is total confusion; let’s get the law to settle the confusion,” he said in an interview on Asempa FM Ekosii Sen.

The ruling which bars four MPs from holding themselves as such takes immediate effect  and has shifted the balance of power in Parliament.

The NDC MPs will now form the majority caucus with 136 seats, while the New Patriotic Party (NPP) becomes the Minority with 135 seats.

Meanwhile, the MPs affected by the ruling are the NDC’s Peter Yaw Kwakye Ackah of Amenfi Central constituency, Andrew Amoakoh Asiamah of Fomena, Kojo Asante, NPP MP for Suhum in the Eastern Region, and NPP’s Cynthia Morrison of Agona West constituency.

ALSO READ:

• Meet the 4 MPs whose seats have been declared vacant

• Speaker conspired with NDC – Afenyo-Markin on vacant seats 

From the Venerable Hon Haruna Iddrisu Esq to the Hon @Cassielforson ! The NDC is the most successful political organization in Ghana! Congratulations Ato Forson, lets go#GhanaDeservesBetter pic.twitter.com/xmQGFNvQBs

— Joyce Bawah Mogtari (@joyce_bawah) October 17, 2024

The development which has affected three New Patriotic Party (NPP) seats and one National Democratic Congress(NDC) seat has sparked mixed reactions amidst goodwill messages to the NDC MPs.

Planned and executed by one leader for another leader. The NDC shall lead 💚 pic.twitter.com/KphDXtHGKe

— Abdul Hameed (@sayhameed) October 17, 2024

Tamale South MP and former Minority Leader, Haruna Iddrisu who filed the motion has been commended by some social media users.

The NDC’s Thiago Alcantara! 🐐🤌 pic.twitter.com/17BSlrTJmf

— S A G E (@logical_nash) October 17, 2024

At the moment, the NDC MPs will form the Majority with 136 seats while the NPP has 135 seats.

Congratulations to the NDC on becoming the Majority of Parliament and our new majority leader Dr. Casiel Ato Forson. Victory for 2024 has started. 🕺🕺🕺🕺 pic.twitter.com/z0MCxXaq5d

— Sir (@Sirr_Austin) October 17, 2024

The MPs affected by the ruling are the NDC’s Peter Yaw Kwakye Ackah of Amenfi Central constituency, Andrew Amoakoh Asiamah of Fomena, Kojo Asante, NPP MP for Suhum in the Eastern Region, and NPP’s Cynthia Morrison of Agona West constituency.

At this point, it appears that it’s the NDC that must rather use the slogan, ‘it is possible’..because eeiii, the battle is the Lord’s ampa! pic.twitter.com/aK4w4XR6Gn

— Chris Atadika (@chrisatadika) October 17, 2024

Read more reactions below:

The victory of the NDC is coming again!
We praise God and we thank the RT Hon Speaker of Parliament

This is real democracy at work!
Acta Non Verba! pic.twitter.com/i1naDD3h0O

— Joyce Bawah Mogtari (@joyce_bawah) October 17, 2024

While the NPP controls the executive and judiciary, the NDC controls the legislature—interesting! #Ghana #Parliament #AlbanBagbin @gyaigyimii pic.twitter.com/Ln54pItYyP

— KOJO (@kojocona) October 17, 2024

Goosebumps all over me just listening to @Cassielforson
Speak… The leadership in parliem now is stronger than ever, the NDC begins to reset the country from today inshallah!!!pic.twitter.com/Bqq0hhH7fE

— AKWESI🇬🇭 (@_AlbertAkwesi) October 17, 2024

The NDC is now the Majority in parliament!
For the first time ever in Ghanaian politics history, one party controls the executive whiles another controls the legislature!
We look forward to see how this goes even though it’s just a few more days to election

Alban Bagbin Gisela pic.twitter.com/ruwWfTwohB

— Loyalty 💎 (@f_shamun) October 17, 2024

Say MAESTRO.
Aduna for a reason 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Solid Personality 💚🖤❤️🤍
This is the beginning of our Victory come Dec 7th.
The NDC shall win ‼️ pic.twitter.com/LoKOzkvakf

— NDC ZONGO (@NDCZONGO) October 17, 2024

From victory unto victory, the NDC shall lead. Congratulations Leader @Cassielforson ☺️☺️ pic.twitter.com/VswWxyFec2

— Millicent Apeku💫 (@Milliemilly18) October 17, 2024

The former President has said it is a sign of the NDC’s victory on December 7, 2024.

“So for me, God is even showing a sign of what is going to happen because even before we have cast one single ballot, the NDC has become the majority,” he said at a campaign rally in Kpone Katamanso.

Speaker Bagbin’s ruling follows a motion filed by Tamale South MP Haruna Iddrisu, seeking to have the seats of four colleagues who have filed nominations to contest the upcoming elections as independent candidates vacant.

With this declaration, the NDC who now has 136 seats will be the Majority and the NPP with 135 seats as the Minority.

However, Mr Mahama has charged NDC supporters to solidify this position by performing well on December 7.

“That is when the people of Ghana are going to cast their votes and I know that 7th December 2024 is going to be a watershed event that will change the course of Ghana’s history,” he said.

The former President also reflected on his campaign trail, saying that after engaging with citizens across 10 regions, the message is clear that “Ghana needs change.”

ALSO READ:

• Speaker conspired with NDC – Afenyo-Markin on vacant seats 

• NPP MPs to boycott Parliament after Speaker declares 4 seats vacant

Effutu MP and now Minority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin has described the ruling as biased.

According to him, it is a conspiracy between Speaker Bagbin and the National Democratic Congress (NDC) to give the latter an advantage in the House.

The affected MPs are Cynthia Morrison (Agona West), Kwadwo Asante (Suhum), Andrew Asiamah (Fomena), and Peter Kwakye Ackah (Amenfi Central).

Cynthia Morrison and Mr Asante are NPP MPs who have filed to contest the 2024 general election as independent candidates.

Bagbin’s decision has affected the following four MPs:

Cynthia Morrison, a former Minister for Gender, Children and Social Protection on August 22, 2024, declared her intention to go independent during an interaction with constituents.

This was months after she lost the NPP parliamentary primary held on Saturday, April 13.

Madam Morrison garnered 152 votes, while Christopher Arthur emerged victorious with 240 votes, securing the nomination as the Parliamentary candidate.

Boafo Kwadwo Asante – Suhum

Mr Asante, who is the sitting MP for Suhum also on September 2, announced he will be contesting the 2024 election as an independent candidate.

Oboafo Kwadwo Asante, who was seeking a second term in office, lost the party’s nomination to Frank Aseidu Bekoe, popularly known as Protozoa, who garnered 496 votes against Asante’s 320.

The unexpected defeat has led Asante to declare his intention to continue his political journey independently.

Peter Kwakye Ackah – Amenfi Central

For Mr Kwakye-Ackah, he cited unfair treatment by the NDC after businesswoman, Joana Gyan Cudjoe was elected as the NDC Parliamentary Candidate.

However, the Electoral Commission has disqualified Madam Cudjoe from contesting the election due to an interlocutory injunction.

Kwakye-Ackah has stated that despite the disqualification of Cudjoe, he remains open to working with the NDC to build a united front.

Andrew Amoako Asiamah – Fomena

Andrew Amoako Asiamah was sacked from the NPP after deciding to contest the 2020 election as an incumbent MP who was disqualified from the parliamentary primaries.

Former Speaker, Prof Aaron Mike Ocquaye subsequently declared his seat vacant which means this will be the second time he will suffer same fate.

However, he won the 2020 election and returned to parliament in January 2021 as an independent candidate, who opted to do business with the NPP.

Ahead of the 2024 election, he announced that he will contest the on the ticket of the NPP.

Member of Parliament for Effutu, Alexander Afenyo-Markin has accused Speaker Alban Bagbin of conspiring with the National Democratic Congress (NDC) lawmakers to declare the four seats vacant.

The ruling of Speaker Bagbin follows a motion by Tamale South MP, Haruna Iddrisu.

The ruling which takes immediate effect has shifted the balance of power in Parliament.

The NDC MPs will now form the majority caucus with 136 seats while the New Patriotic Party (NPP) becomes the Minority with 135 seats.

Dissatisfied with the ruling, Mr Afenyo-Markin now Minority Leader said the Speaker did not have the right to make a constitutional interpretation.

“We have just witnessed a conspiracy between the speaker and the Minorty to bring confusion in the house, it is clear that Mr. Speaker avoided service of the writ to do the bidding of the NDC.

“We as the Majority Caucus immediately are boycotting parliament until this matter is determined by the Supreme Court, the speaker has no right to interpret the constitution,” he told journalists in Parliament.

Meanwhile, the MPs affected by the ruling are the NDC’s Peter Yaw Kwakye Ackah of Amenfi Central constituency, Andrew Amoakoh Asiamah of Fomena, Kojo Asante, NPP MP for Suhum in the Eastern Region, and NPP’s Cynthia Morrison of Agona West constituency.

ALSO READ:

• Allow Speaker make a decision; don’t involve Supreme Court – Jinapor to Afenyo Markin

• Speaker Bagbin declares 4 parliamentary seats vacant

Former Minority Leader, Haruna Iddrisu is spearheading the effort to vacate three Majority seats—Amenfi Central, Suhum, and Agona West—and the Fomena seat, currently held by a Minority MP.

The move follows the decision by the affected MPs to either run as Independent candidates or align with other political parties.

Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin confirmed that Haruna Iddrisu has officially written to the Speaker, basing his motion on Orders 99 and 18 of Parliament’s Standing Orders.

“I got a memo from the respected member for Tamale South, addressed to Mr. Speaker, petitioning to declare some seats vacant,” Afenyo-Markin told the press.

In response, Afenyo-Markin has filed an action at the Supreme Court, seeking to block any declaration of the seats as vacant.

Additionally, he has filed an injunction application, which has been served on Parliament.

Meanwhile, MP for Manhia North, Akwasi Ampofo Adjei, has criticized the Minority’s move, arguing that it misinterprets the constitution.

“They are wrongly comparing this with what happened in the 7th Parliament, where a party suspended the candidate. That triggered Article 97, but this situation is different,” he argued.