Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, has announced that Parliament intends to seek legal interpretation regarding President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo’s decision to withhold his signature from certain bills passed by the House.
In the previous year, President Akufo-Addo declined to sign the Criminal Offences Bill of 2022, the Witchcraft Bill, and the Armed Forces Bill of 2023. His rationale for withholding assent was attributed to the financial implications associated with these bills.
The Speaker of Parliament stated that, in response, Parliament plans to take the matter to court to seek a legal interpretation of the situation.
“I want to end up by assuring you that I will definitely be in touch with my good friend the president, his excellency Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo even though I disagree with him in his refusal to assent to our bills and I have given notice that we will be in court about this matter,” he said.
The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, maintains that President Akufo-Addo is not qualified to judge whether the bills in question are constitutional because that is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. As such, the Supreme Court alone should address any claims of abuse.
The Ghana Armed Forces Amendment Bill, introduced by MP Francis-Xavier Sosu, was specifically mentioned by President Akufo-Addo as having financial costs related to substituting life in prison for the death penalty.
The Speaker of Parliament, in an official response to the president, stressed, “The determination of any unconstitutionality is the sole purview of the Supreme Court, not the President. Hence, if there were concerns about Parliament acting beyond its constitutional authority, i.e., acting ultra vires, the appropriate course of action would be an action before the Supreme Court, not an executive declaration of unconstitutionality.”
“Again, the constitutional discretion vested in the presiding officer of Parliament, as per Article 108 and subject to Article 296, suggests that any allegations of misuse of this discretion should be contested in a court of competent jurisdiction, rather than being pre-emptively adjudicated upon by the President.”