By GhanaNewsPage 
Speaker Bagbin Declines Supreme Court Service on Declaring Four Parliamentary Seats Vacant
Recently, Ghana’s Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, rejected a writ from the Supreme Court regarding his controversial decision to declare four parliamentary seats vacant. The ruling initially stemmed from Bagbin’s assertion that four Members of Parliament (MPs) had contravened parliamentary rules by switching political affiliations or standing as independent candidates for the upcoming December elections. He interpreted this shift as a violation of Article 97 of Ghana’s Constitution, which maintains that MPs must remain loyal to their original parties throughout their terms. The Speaker’s move was in response to petitions from minority leaders and was based on constitutional guidelines intended to address party defection within Parliament.
Following Bagbin’s declaration, the New Patriotic Party (NPP) MPs promptly sought intervention from the Supreme Court, filing an ex parte application to halt the implementation of the Speaker’s ruling. The Court granted a stay of execution, effectively allowing the MPs to retain their seats while legal proceedings continue. This order aims to ensure that the affected MPs can fully participate in parliamentary activities and represent their constituencies until a final decision is reached. Presiding over this decision, Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, along with other justices, emphasized that the Speaker’s authority should remain subject to judicial review to avoid conflicts within parliamentary operations and uphold the rule of law in governance.
Speaker Bagbin, however, declined to accept the Supreme Court’s writ, which raised concerns over a potential jurisdictional conflict between Ghana’s judiciary and legislative branches. The Speaker’s stance has sparked a debate about the separation of powers in Ghana’s government and the constitutional boundaries that should guide each branch’s authority. Critics argue that the Speaker’s refusal may lead to a constitutional impasse, with significant implications for parliamentary integrity and judicial oversight.
As the legal case unfolds, it underscores the delicate balance of power in Ghana’s governance, where both judicial restraint and parliamentary sovereignty are under scrutiny. Bagbin’s position may provoke further discourse on parliamentary autonomy, especially concerning the judiciary’s role in reviewing and possibly overturning legislative actions. Observers now await a resolution from the Supreme Court, which will not only clarify this case but potentially set a precedent for how future disputes between Parliament and the judiciary are managed in Ghanaian governance.