The Supreme Court has adjourned its ruling on the case concerning four vacated parliamentary seats until November 11, 2024. This case was brought by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin against Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin.
During the proceedings, the Attorney General (AG) objected to the Speaker’s use of private lawyer Thaddeus Sory for legal representation, arguing that this was unlawful due to the absence of prior approval from the Public Procurement Authority (PPA).
The AG referred to a December 2022 letter from the PPA that denied the Speaker’s office the request to hire external legal counsel instead of relying on the AG’s department.
According to the AG, the Speaker’s office should depend on the Attorney General’s office for legal representation in this matter. The lack of PPA approval, the AG contended, renders the Speaker’s choice of private counsel invalid.
This hearing follows the Supreme Court’s earlier dismissal of Speaker Bagbin’s motion to overturn a ruling that temporarily set aside his declaration of the four seats as vacant.
Background
The case centers on Speaker Alban Bagbin’s declaration that four parliamentary seats were vacant, based on his interpretation of Article 97(1)(g) of the Constitution.
This decision has generated significant legal and political controversy, prompting Majority Leader Afenyo-Markin to challenge it in the Supreme Court.
Afenyo-Markin asserted that Bagbin exceeded his constitutional authority by declaring the seats vacant without judicial oversight or permitting by-elections. In response, the Supreme Court issued an interim injunction, halting the Speaker’s ruling until a final decision is made.
To reverse this interim ruling, Speaker Bagbin filed an application with the Supreme Court to reinstate his declaration of the seats as vacant. His attorney, Thaddeus Sory, argued that the Supreme Court lacks the jurisdiction to intervene in parliamentary decisions, emphasizing that the Speaker’s rulings are non-judicial and should fall outside the court’s authority for issuing stays of execution. Bagbin’s motion also claimed that judicial involvement in parliamentary decisions disrupts the separation of powers established by Ghana’s Constitution.
However, Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo dismissed Bagbin’s application, affirming the Court’s jurisdiction to intervene in parliamentary decisions when they are alleged to breach constitutional provisions. She noted the potential consequences for constituents who might lose their parliamentary representation without the option of by-elections, particularly as the general elections on December 7 approach. The Chief Justice instructed both parties to submit their statements of claims within seven days to facilitate an expedited hearing of the substantive issues.
As the Court prepares for its judgment on November 11, the Attorney General has reiterated objections to the Speaker’s choice of private counsel, Thaddeus Sory, citing the lack of PPA approval. The AG emphasized that parliamentary matters should be under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General’s office for legal representation, especially following the PPA’s 2022 rejection of the Speaker’s request for external legal services.
This case highlights complex issues regarding the separation of powers, the limits of parliamentary authority, and the judiciary’s role in overseeing constitutional interpretations made within Parliament.