Alban Bagbin’s request denied

The Supreme Court of Ghana has denied Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin’s request to overturn an earlier ruling that prevented him from declaring four parliamentary seats vacant, further complicating the legal debate on the Speaker’s authority and the judiciary’s role in legislative matters.

In his appeal, Speaker Bagbin sought to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision that temporarily halted his action regarding the four contested seats. He also aimed to nullify a motion by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, which requested the court to prevent Bagbin from making additional announcements on the matter.

Represented by lawyer Thaddeus Sory, Bagbin argued that his decision was a parliamentary matter beyond the court’s jurisdiction, claiming that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds by intervening. He contended that orders staying the Speaker’s decisions should not apply, as they are non-judicial in nature and differ from standard court rulings subject to stays of execution.

Bagbin’s filing stated: “The Supreme Court’s power to stay execution, under Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, extends only to rulings made by the judiciary itself, not those of the Speaker of Parliament, who stands outside the judicial hierarchy.”

He further asserted that his decisions, as head of an independent branch of government, should not undergo the same review as judicial rulings, warning that judicial intervention could threaten the constitutional separation of powers in Ghana.

Chief Justice addressed the issue, stating, “This court must immediately resolve this dispute rather than issuing a temporary 10-day stay on Article 97(1)(g), given the potential harm to constituencies—impacting hundreds of thousands of Ghanaians who would be left without MPs or a chance for by-elections—and the impact on MPs potentially losing their seats just weeks before the December 7 election.”

She ordered an expedited resolution through a statement of case, requiring both parties to submit their arguments within seven days, aiming to bypass the usual 14-day delay and swiftly address the constitutional issues raised.

The Chief Justice noted that had all parties complied with the accelerated process, the dispute could have been resolved within the 10 days initially requested by the petitioner.