Supreme Court rejects Bagbin’s application to reverse ruling on vacant seats

The Supreme Court of Ghana recently dismissed an application from Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin that sought to reverse an earlier ruling blocking his declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacant. This decision has deepened the ongoing legal dispute concerning the scope of the Speaker’s powers and the judiciary’s ability to intervene in parliamentary decisions.

The Speaker’s initial move aimed to annul the Supreme Court’s order, which temporarily halted his declaration regarding the disputed seats. Bagbin’s application also sought to invalidate a writ from Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, who requested judicial intervention to prevent further declarations from the Speaker on the seats in question.

Represented by lawyer Thaddeus Sory, Bagbin argued that the Supreme Court overstepped its boundaries by suspending his parliamentary ruling, claiming that parliamentary decisions should not fall within the judiciary’s purview. Bagbin contended that stays of execution apply only to judicial rulings within the hierarchy of courts, not to actions of the Speaker, who represents an independent branch of government. He raised concerns that this judicial intervention undermines the constitutional principle of separation of powers in Ghana.

However, in her ruling, the Chief Justice emphasized the potential harm to the constituencies affected by Bagbin’s ruling. She noted that leaving these constituencies unrepresented, without the possibility of by-elections just before the December 7 elections, could have irreparable consequences for their residents. To expedite proceedings, the Chief Justice shortened the standard 14-day period for responses, allowing claims to be filed within seven days to resolve the matter quickly.

The Chief Justice underscored that if all parties had followed this accelerated timeline, the case could have been resolved within the 10-day period Bagbin initially requested. This ruling reaffirms the Supreme Court’s commitment to protecting constitutional rights, even within the context of parliamentary actions, while balancing the principles of separation of powers and judicial oversight.