The stakes Can’t be high for both the Presidency and the Legislature. The Supreme Court is set to hear to writ filed against the House over its refusal to continue with the vetting and approval process of some Ministers-designate. The speaker of Parliament attributed this decision to another writ filed at the court against the continuation of the process.

“Hon Members, I also bring to your attention, the receipt of a process from the Courts titled Rockson-Nelson Etse K. Dafeamekpor vrs. The Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney-General ( Suit no. J1/12/2024) which process was served on the 19th of March 2024 and an injunction motion on notice seeking to restrain the Speaker from proceeding with the vetting and approval of the names of the persons submitted by His Excellency the President until the provisions of the constitution are satisfied… .Hon. Members in the light of this process, the House is unable to continue to consider the nominations of His Excellency the President in the ‘spirit of upholding the rule of law’ until after the determination of the application for interlocutory injunction by the Supreme Court,”
RT. Honourable Alban Bagbin

In the public and among experts, this decision is seen as the Speaker’s, or perhaps the Parliament’s response to the President over his refusal to assent to the anti-LGBTQ bill. Besides, the concern among the public is also about the impact of this rift on governance in the country.

Moreover, this sort of banter between the Executive and Legislative arms of government is highly uncommon in Ghana. This is why so many people are worried.

Judicial Checkmate

Immediately after the Supreme Court disclosed its decision to hear the suit, rumours, and rancours permeated the public space. While some people are in support of the expeditious manner the Court is handling the issue, others are of the view that the court is favoring the Presidency.

They see no reason why the genesis of the problem which is his refusal to assent to the anti-LGBTQ Bill cannot be addressed.

If the Presidency says that it can’t assent to the anti-LGBTQ+ Bill due to a pending suit before the court, in their view, the court should have taken that case and determined its constitutionality or otherwise to bring finality to the feud.

In defending the President’s decision to withhold assent to a bill over a judicial action, the President’s secretary issued a letter to the legislative chamber.

“This Office is aware of two pending applications for an order of interlocutory injunction, both filed on 7th March 2024, in the Supreme Court in Dr. Amanda Odoi v. The Speaker of Parliament and The Attorney-General (J1/13/2023) and Richard Sky v. The Parliament of Ghana and The Attorney-General (11/9/2024), respectively, to restrain you and Parliament from transmitting the Bill to the President and, also, to restrain the President from signifying his assent to the Bill, pending the final determination of the matter,”
Nana Asante Bediatuo

The brewing Gridlock

With the Executive and the legislature locked in their fisticuffs, the potential gridlock that can emanate from the situation needs to be avoided. As the country goes to polls in a few months, it appears that both the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP) and the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC) are also posturing for political points.

Irrespective, of where the verdict sways, the speaker has gained the support of many people including Lawyer Martin Kpebu.

“Every lawyer, irrespective of their political affiliation will testify that the speaker has done no wrong because all lawyers speak the same language. If the Speaker says because of the summons in the supreme court I cannot go ahead with the ministerial vetting, then no one holds him to ransom because he acted within the confines of the law.”
Lawyer Martin Kpebu

In an instance like this, where NDC’s public show of support for the anti-LGBTQ+ Bill is in sync with the public sentiments, the ruling rival is cornered and forced to take a cautious approach. Regardless of the outcome of the Supreme Court on the matter, its perceived “bias” towards the government and the ruling party would not be lost on the minds of many.

Furthermore, the clash can be looked at from the personality perspective as well. Both the president and the current speaker of Parliament were once colleagues in the legislature. These two individuals represent a divergent point of view and personality.

The former is considered a radical and assertive person, while the latter is seen as fearless and calm yet also confident. It can be deduced that beyond the politics and questions of legality, isn’t probable that this brouhaha stems in part from a clash of egos and leadership style?