Speaker Alban Bagbin has adjourned Parliament indefinitely. This decision follows the ongoing controversy surrounding his ruling on the vacant seats in Parliament.
In his address, Speaker Bagbin noted a recent Supreme Court ruling concerning the status of four Members of Parliament, allowing them to retain their seats pending a final decision on the matter.
“Honorable members, as you may recall, on Thursday, I informed the house pursuant to Standing Order 18 of the Standing Orders of Parliament on the occurrence of vacancies in the house in relation to four honorable members. Yesterday, I received a process from the Supreme Court, which is a ruling from the Supreme Court pursuant to an ex parte application directing Parliament to recognize and allow the four affected Members of Parliament to duly represent their constituents and conduct the full scope of duties of their offices as members of Parliament, pending a final determination of a suit filed by Honorable Alexander Afenyo-Markin,” he told the house.
Citing Articles 102 and 104 of the Constitution, further explained the constitutional requirements for a quorum and decision-making in Parliament.
“By Article 102 of the Constitution, 1992, and Order 64 (1) of the Standing Orders of Parliament, I note that we currently have a quorum to transact business, but not to take decisions. Article 102 reads, ‘A quorum of Parliament, apart from the person presiding, shall be one-third of all the members of Parliament.’ As presently constituted, the numbers are definitely far above one-third of the members of Parliament. But by Article 104, the numbers are not sufficient for us to take decisions. Article 104 (1) says, ‘Except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, matters in Parliament shall be determined by the vote of the majority of members present and voting, with at least half of all the members of Parliament present.’ Honourable members, we don’t have at least half of all the members of Parliament present.”.
Given the current circumstances and the question on the composition and constitution of Parliament, Speaker Bagbin decided to adjourn the house indefinitely. He cited Standing Orders 59, which allows the Speaker, in consultation with leadership, to suspend a meeting of the house indefinitely or for a period determined by the Speaker, considering the public interest and the exigencies of the state of affairs in the country.
“The house is accordingly adjourned sine die,” Speaker Bagbin concluded.
This indefinite adjournment raises significant questions about the legislative process and governance in Ghana, as key decisions and legislative activities are now on hold until further notice.
Background and Reactions
The controversy began when Speaker Bagbin declared the seats of four Members of Parliament vacant on October 17, 2024. The affected MPs are: Andrew Asiamah Amoako (Independent, Fomena Constituency), Cynthia Morrison (NPP, Agona West Constituency), Peter Yaw Kwakye-Ackah (NDC, Amenfi Central Constituency), Kwadjo Asante (NPP, Suhum Constituency).
The Supreme Court intervened, issuing a ruling to stay the Speaker’s decision and allowing the MPs to retain their seats until a final determination is made. The court emphasized that the Speaker’s declaration deprived the affected constituencies of representation and could disrupt government business.
Reactions to the Supreme Court’s ruling have been mixed. Legal experts have stressed the importance of adhering to court rulings to maintain order and prevent chaos. The Ghana Center for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana) has urged Parliament to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision to avoid further instability.
Meanwhile, the NDC Caucus in Parliament has challenged the ruling, arguing that parliamentary proceedings should not be subject to judicial interference and has gone ahead to assume majority status.