The Majority caucus has strongly criticized Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin’s decision to declare the parliamentary seats of four MPs vacant, following a motion filed by former Minority Leader Haruna Iddrisu.
The motion was based on constitutional provisions that require MPs seeking to run as independent candidates or change party affiliations to vacate their seats.
The affected MPs are Cynthia Morrison (Agona West), Kwadjo Asante (Suhum), Andrew Asiamah (Fomena), and Peter Kwakye Ackah (Amenfi Central).
This ruling has a significant impact on the balance of power in Parliament, potentially giving the Minority caucus, led by the National Democratic Congress (NDC), a majority over the New Patriotic Party (NPP)-led Majority caucus.
The NDC now holds 136 seats, while the NPP has 135. This shift could influence important parliamentary votes and decisions leading up to the 2024 general elections.
In a statement issued on Thursday, October 17, the Majority caucus accused Bagbin of exceeding his authority by making a preemptive ruling on the issue, which they argue falls under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
They believe that the Speaker’s decision undermines the separation of powers and infringes on the judicial function of determining such matters.
The statement highlighted that Bagbin’s ruling represents a “serious violation” of parliamentary procedure and is an instance of judicial overreach.
The Majority caucus contends that the decision of whether these MPs should lose their seats should have been left to the courts instead of the Speaker issuing an immediate ruling.
This development has escalated political tensions in Parliament, with the Majority caucus indicating their intention to challenge the decision through legal means while considering the broader implications for the functioning of the legislative body.
They argue that the Speaker’s actions amount to a clear assumption of powers designated to the Supreme Court of Ghana under Articles 2(1) and 130 of the 1992 Constitution. The aforementioned provisions confer explicit authority upon the Supreme Court to interpret and enforce constitutional issues.
Furthermore, the actions of the Speaker go against Article 99(1) of the Constitution, which grants the High Court jurisdiction to decide on the validity of parliamentary membership.
The Speaker’s decision to address this issue in advance has seriously weakened the fundamental separation of powers in our democracy. Concerns were raised about the Speaker’s lack of respect for the ongoing judicial proceedings. It is particularly concerning that the Speaker made this ruling despite the pending matter of Article 94(1)(g) interpretation before the Supreme Court.
The Majority Leader filed a lawsuit against the Speaker and the Attorney General on October 15, 2024, seeking constitutional clarification of the provision, and informed the Speaker of this during the parliamentary session on October 16, 2024.
The writ was served to Parliament via its Legal Department on October 16, 2024, preceding the Speaker’s ruling. In reaction to the Speaker’s decision, the Majority initiated a walkout and declared their intent to abstain from Parliament until the issue is adjudicated by the Supreme Court.
