The former Special Prosecutor, Martin A. B. K. Amidu has strongly criticised the Speaker of Parliament, Rt. Hon. Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, accusing him of defying the Supreme Court’s orders over his pronouncement of four parliamentary seats vacant.
The renowned legal practitioner, who also doubles as the former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice under the late President John Evans Atta Mills’ administration, strongly condemned what he termed as the Speaker’s defiance and cautioned about the enduring fallout from this high-stakes political impasse.
“The Speaker of Parliament did not have to wait for the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered on 12 November 2024, declaring both his conduct on 17 October 2024 in Parliament in interpreting the provisions of Article 97 (1) (g) and (h), of the 1992 Constitution and pronouncing the seats of four Members of Parliament (MPs) vacant as unconstitutional to obey orders directed at Speaker of Parliament by the Court on 18 October 2024 and reaffirmed on 30 October 2024 staying the Speaker’s ruling or pronouncement of those four seats vacant”.
Martin A. B. K. Amidu, Former Special Prosecutor
He further argued that the Speaker’s continued “intransigence in challenging, disobeying, and scurrilously” abusing the Court through pronouncements in Parliament and media engagements escalated the conflict to such intractable and emotional intensity.
This obstinacy, he argued, risks casting a long shadow over the relationship between the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP) and the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC) caucuses in Parliament well beyond Mr Bagbin’s tenure as Speaker.
The Tensions Unfold
The crux of the controversy began on October 17, when Speaker Bagbin interpreted Articles 97(1)(g) and (h) of the 1992 Constitution, declaring four parliamentary seats vacant. The Supreme Court’s swift intervention on October 18 stayed this pronouncement, reinforcing the legal tenet that court decisions must be respected until set aside.
Yet, Martin Amidu observed that Speaker Bagbin’s refusal to comply and his continued public disparagement of the Court exacerbated the crisis. He opined that the standoff culminated in Speaker Bagbin’s media engagements on November 6, which, despite behind-the-scenes efforts to encourage a conciliatory approach, “took on the hallmark of contempt of scandalizing the Supreme Court.”
The former Minister of Justice also expressed concerns over Speaker Bagbin adjournment of Parliament sine die on November 7, following a contentious session prompted by the Majority caucus’s demand for re-convening.
He noted with dismay how this period of stalemate consumed parliamentary time that could have been used for pressing national matters.
He questioned whether Speaker Bagbin’s actions were fueled by “an expedient political agenda at the expense of the national good,” emphasizing that such a move risks tarnishing a career touted for its 28 years of parliamentary service.
Constitutional Respect and Legal Precedent
Martin Amidu, known for his staunch advocacy for constitutional fidelity, underscored that obedience to the judiciary is non-negotiable. “Whether the Court’s decision was founded or unfounded was beside the point; it had to be obeyed until set aside or overturned, period!” he asserted.
His pointed reminder reflects the entrenched principle that the rule of law underpins democratic governance. The former Special Prosecutor’s critique did not spare the Minority leadership in Parliament, particularly Hon. Haruna Iddrisu, whom he identified as an architect behind the “conspiracy to set fire to the nation and the 1992 Constitution.”
Martin Amidu recounted his forewarning to an emissary of Hon. Iddrisu on October 13, predicting that the legal gamble taken by the Minority would unravel unfavourably in court. His admonition, now vindicated, highlights what he described as the peril of allowing “youthful exuberance” to cloud prudent judgment.
Political Fallout and Future Implications
As Parliament faces the aftermath of this protracted conflict, the former Special Prosecutor, Martin Amidu warned of the long-term consequences.
The Speaker’s actions, he said, “have put a knife on the conventions that held the coordinating and cooperative relationship of the majority and minority in Parliament on the one hand, and the executive and the legislature on the other.”
This disruption, he contended, would require an extended period of recovery for trust and unity to be restored, especially as the December 7, 2024, elections loom.
Martin Amidu’s prognosis for how the Speaker will respond to the Supreme Court’s definitive judgment was tinged with skepticism. “How Speaker Bagbin is going to swallow his big ego and pride, and recall Parliament by eating humble pie in obeying the judgment and orders of the Court… should be anybody’s guess,” he stated.
For the Majority caucus, Martin Amidu urged them to refrain from initiating any further petitions for reconvening Parliament, instead leaving the onus on Speaker Bagbin to rectify the situation.
Reflecting on the broader implications of this parliamentary standoff, Martin Amidu questioned the legacy that Speaker Bagbin seeks to leave behind. “Maybe, Speaker Bagbin and his supporters intended to put the nation in this chaotic situation… but time will tell,” he mused.
He drew attention to the national cost of what he framed as Speaker Bagbin’s “bloated ego” and intransigence, which he noted have led to a squandered opportunity for Parliament to address critical legislative issues.
Martin Amidu’s closing remarks were laden with a cautionary note: “Intractable and intense emotional conflicts even when they appear to have been resolved leave residues which inform the next cycle of conflict.”
The Speaker’s failure to act with maturity, he contended, has sown seeds of discord that could resonate within future Parliaments, undermining both collaboration and the public’s faith in the legislative process.
READ ALSO: COP29 Urges Ethical Mineral Sourcing for Green Future
