Ghana’s Supreme Court has dismissed an application by Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin, who had sought to overturn the court’s suspension of his declaration that four parliamentary seats were vacant.

This ruling, delivered by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, emphasized that no one, not even the President or Vice President, is exempt from obeying the court’s directives, particularly when they serve to protect the constitution and the country’s democratic framework.

“It is important to place on record that both the plaintiff and the attorney general have complied with these orders.
“And this court is able to complete hearing of dispute if the speaker chooses to file no processes. For the above reasons, the application is refused.”
Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo,

Chief Justice Torkornoo explained the court’s decision, underscoring the potential for “irreparable harm” that would result if Bagbin’s interpretation of Article 97(1)(g) were enforced without thorough judicial review.

The Chief Justice stressed that the implications of removing MPs, without offering constituents the option of a by-election, would leave thousands of Ghanaians unrepresented.

She highlighted the duty of the judiciary to prevent any constitutional violations and maintain a balanced distribution of power, especially as Ghana nears a critical electoral period.

The court noted that if the Speaker’s decision were allowed to stand without review, it would risk disenfranchising both the MPs and their constituencies.

By asserting the suspension, the court sought to prevent immediate vacancies in Parliament while facilitating a swift resolution to the dispute.

The order to expedite proceedings, reducing the standard 14-day filing period for constitutional challenges to 7 days, reflects the urgency the court sees in resolving this constitutional question before the general elections.

Chief Justice Torkornoo noted, “This court found it expedient to compel the parties to allow an early hearing rather than make an order that would last only 10 days.”

Legal Arguments and Court Proceedings

During the proceedings, arguments from the Speaker’s legal team sought to challenge the Supreme Court’s authority to review parliamentary actions.

However, the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice countered that the constitution grants the Supreme Court clear jurisdiction over constitutional interpretation, particularly when legislative or executive actions may conflict with the country’s foundational laws.

The Supreme Court, aligning with this viewpoint, dismissed the jurisdictional challenge, affirming that the judiciary has an essential role in upholding the rule of law.

The court further noted that the Speaker’s application lacked sufficient grounds, deeming his appeal “without merit.”

Additionally, the court emphasized the distinction between the existence of its jurisdiction and whether it was appropriately invoked in this case. This clarification addressed legal questions raised by Bagbin’s team, who argued that the procedural aspects of the Supreme Court’s involvement were flawed.

Chief Justice Torkornoo, however, maintained that the procedural compliance by the plaintiff and Attorney-General underscored the court’s proper jurisdiction in addressing the case.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, Chief Justice Torkornoo issued an ultimatum to Speaker Bagbin, setting a deadline of Wednesday, November 6, for the Speaker to file all necessary documents if he intends to proceed with the case.

This directive came after Thaddeus Sory, Bagbin’s lawyer, requested additional time to confer with his client to determine their strategy moving forward.

If the Speaker fails to meet this filing deadline, the court has indicated that it will continue proceedings based on the existing submissions from other parties, which could expedite a final resolution.

In the meantime, the affected MPs and their constituents can breathe a sigh of relief, as they retain their representation and participation in the parliamentary process.

With the country preparing for the December elections, the Supreme Court’s swift handling of this matter will likely resonate with citizens keen on seeing democratic principles upheld and stability maintained in Ghana’s political landscape.