Kofi Bentil, a Lawyer and Vice President of IMANI Ghana has strongly defended recent ruling of the Supreme Court affirming the use of ex parte applications, that they are common in urgent situations where immediate court intervention is required.

The Supreme Court of Ghana recently ruled to dismiss an application filed by the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, seeking to overturn an earlier judgment issued by the Court. The case has stirred a nationwide discussion, spotlighting tensions between the judiciary and the legislature and raising questions about the judicial process, particularly the use of ex-parte applications.

In response to the Speaker’s application, lawyer Kofi Bentil emphasize that such motions are part and parcel of the legal process.

“If anybody has a problem with an ex parte application, then that person does not appreciate the fact that ex parte applications are part of the law, and they are part of the legal process.”
Kofi Bentil, Lawyer and Vice President of IMANI Ghana

He emphasized that while some argue such applications favor one party over another, they are designed for situations requiring immediate judicial intervention, particularly in constitutional matters that could affect state stability.

Kofi Bentil elaborated on the structured legal framework guiding ex-parte applications, including time limitations that ensure transparency.

“When the court makes an order, the order has an expiry. After 10 days, it lapses,” he explained, underscoring that this allows the opposing party, in this case, the Speaker of Parliament, the opportunity to challenge the decision within a legally defined timeframe.

This mechanism, he said, ensures that ex-parte orders are not inherently biased or permanent but are temporary tools to address urgent legal situations. Bentil noted that even when an ex-parte ruling is issued, the recipient has the right to return to court and contest it in order to have their case heard more comprehensively.

The Core Debate: Judicial Authority vs. Parliamentary Privilege

The legal impasse between Speaker Bagbin and the Supreme Court underscores a broader issue regarding the separation of powers in Ghana. Kofi Bentil argued that challenging the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, particularly on matters of constitutional interpretation, sets a dangerous precedent.

According to Kofi Bentil, Bagbin’s attempt to override the Court’s decision effectively questioned the Court’s role as the highest legal authority in Ghana.

“The Supreme Court is not called the Supreme Court for nothing,” Kofi Bentil remarked, clarifying that its jurisdiction is purposefully broad and designed to allow the Court to interpret constitutional issues, regardless of their political implications.

Citing this judicial latitude, he reiterated that the Court was well within its rights to entertain and rule on the matter ex parte.

He argued that the Speaker’s resistance to the Supreme Court’s ruling suggests a stance that places parliamentary privilege above constitutional checks and balances. Kofi Bentil warned that such a trajectory could erode the foundational respect for judicial authority.

“When you take that kind of position, it’s an affront to the court,” he asserted, emphasizing that all parties must comply with the Supreme Court’s rulings even if they plan to seek recourse.

According to Kofi Bentil, while citizens and public officials may disagree with the Supreme Court’s decisions, the proper approach is to seek redress within the same judicial system, rather than through confrontation.

This ruling has ignited broader concerns about the independence of the Supreme Court and its perceived role in politically sensitive matters.

“Nobody or institution is above the constitution. And it is the supreme court that has the sole prerogative to interpret the constitution.
“To that extent, therefore, if anybody does anything in the nature of law, it is the supreme court that has to make a pronouncement as to whether it is proper or it is not.”
Kofi Bentil, Lawyer and Vice President of IMANI Ghana

Drawing parallels to the United States Supreme Court, Kofi Bentil noted that even in one of the world’s most established democracies, where judges’ affiliations are often known, court rulings retain their legitimacy and command respect.

Kofi Bentil argued that questioning the predictability of the Supreme Court’s actions is less about legal principles and more about diverging political opinions.

Lawer Kofi Bentil concluded by reinforcing the foundational concept that Ghana’s sovereignty lies with the people and the Constitution, not in any single governmental branch. The Supreme Court, as the interpreter of the Constitution, holds a unique role in maintaining legal order and ensuring that all governmental actions align with constitutional mandates.

He advised against dismissing the Court’s rulings on political grounds and stressed that Ghana’s constitutional framework depends on the mutual respect and accountability between its branches of government.