The embattled Majority caucus in Ghana’s Parliament has fiercely criticised Speaker Alban Bagbin’s decision to declare the seats of four Members of Parliament (MPs) vacant.
This ruling followed a motion filed by former Minority Leader Haruna Iddrisu, citing constitutional requirements for MPs who wish to run as independent candidates or change party affiliations.
The MPs affected by this decision are Cynthia Morrison (Agona West), Kwadjo Asante (Suhum), Andrew Asiamah (Fomena), and Peter Kwakye Ackah (Amenfi Central).
The ruling poses a significant shift in the power dynamics within Parliament, potentially allowing the National Democratic Congress (NDC)-led Minority Caucus to gain a majority over the New Patriotic Party (NPP)-led Majority Caucus.
Currently, the NDC holds 136 seats compared to the NPP’s 135, a shift that could influence important votes and decisions as the country approaches the 2024 general elections.
In a statement released on October 17, the Majority Caucus accused Speaker Bagbin of overstepping his authority by preemptively ruling on this matter, which they argue should be determined by the Supreme Court.
They contend that this decision undermines the principle of separation of powers and infringes on the judicial responsibility of resolving such issues.
The statement described Bagbin’s ruling as a “serious violation” of parliamentary procedure and an example of judicial overreach. The Majority caucus insists that the question of whether these MPs should lose their seats should have been left to the courts rather than being addressed by the Speaker without delay.
This development has escalated political tensions within Parliament, with the Majority caucus indicating its plans to contest the ruling through legal means while also contemplating its wider implications for the legislative process.
“The Speaker’s actions constitute a clear usurpation of powers vested in the Supreme Court of Ghana under Articles 2(1) and 130 of the 1992 Constitution. These provisions explicitly empower the Supreme Court with the authority to interpret and enforce constitutional matters.
“Furthermore, the Speaker’s actions contravene Article 99(1) of the Constitution, which vests the High Court with jurisdiction to determine questions of parliamentary membership validity.
By preemptively ruling on this issue, the Speaker has egregiously undermined the separation of powers that is fundamental to our democracy.”
They expressed concerns about the Speaker’s disregard for the ongoing judicial processes.
“Disregard for Ongoing Judicial Processes: It is particularly troubling that the Speaker proceeded with this ruling despite being fully aware that the matter of the meaning and effect of Article 94(1)(g) was pending before the Supreme Court.
“The Majority Leader had filed a suit against the Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney General on October 15, 2024, seeking constitutional interpretation of the said provision, and formally notified the Speaker of this fact during the parliamentary session on October 16, 2024. Crucially, Parliament was officially served with the writ through its Legal Department on October 16, 2024, a day before the Speaker’s ruling.”
In response to the Speaker’s decision, the Majority staged a walkout and has vowed to boycott Parliament until the matter is decided by the Supreme Court.
Here is the full statement by the Majority: