The recent seat vacancy controversy in Ghana has escalated following the Supreme Court’s rejection of an application by Speaker Alban Bagbin. This situation revolves around the declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacant, a ruling that has sparked significant political tension.
Background of the Controversy
On October 17, 2024, Speaker Bagbin declared four seats vacant in Parliament, asserting that the affected Members of Parliament (MPs) had violated Article 97(g) and (h) of the 1992 Constitution by deciding to contest upcoming elections either as independents or under different party banners. The MPs involved included Cynthia Morrison (Agona West), Kwadjo Asante (Suhum), Andrew Amoako Asiamah (Fomena), and Peter Kwakye Ackah (Amenfi Central). This declaration shifted the balance of power in Parliament, giving the National Democratic Congress (NDC) a majority status over the New Patriotic Party (NPP) 12.
However, on October 18, the Supreme Court intervened by granting a stay of execution on Bagbin’s ruling, effectively allowing the MPs to retain their positions while the legal matter was reviewed. This decision was prompted by an application from NPP Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo Markin, who argued that the Speaker’s ruling would unjustly impact their party members 12.
Developments Following the Ruling
In a twist of events, Speaker Bagbin attempted to challenge the Supreme Court’s authority by filing an application to set aside its earlier ruling. He also sought for Justice Yao Gaewu to recuse himself from the panel handling this case, citing concerns over impartiality. However, on October 30, 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed both requests. The Court reiterated its stance and maintained that its previous ruling would stand until a final determination is made 457.
Bagbin’s rejection of a writ served by the Supreme Court further complicated matters. He claimed that the service was improperly executed and violated Article 117 of the Constitution, which protects parliamentary members from legal processes during official duties. His office communicated this rejection formally to the Chief Justice, emphasizing that such actions undermine the independence of Parliament 12.
The ongoing controversy highlights significant tensions within Ghana’s political landscape. The NDC supports Bagbin’s original ruling, viewing it as a necessary step to uphold party loyalty and integrity within Parliament. Conversely, the NPP’s backing of the Supreme Court’s intervention reflects their strategic maneuvering to maintain their influence in legislative affairs 24.
As both parties navigate this complex legal and political terrain, the implications for governance and electoral integrity in Ghana are profound. The situation not only raises questions about constitutional interpretations but also about how parliamentary procedures are upheld amidst political rivalry.
