Professor Ransford Gyampo, a renowned political scientist and lecturer at the University of Ghana, has asserted that the “Judiciary has no authority to gag Parliament” in a true democracy.

His critique highlighted concerns about the potential imbalance of power between the branches of government, especially as Ghana continues to mature as a democratic nation. Prof. Gyampo’s concerns raised from a recent trend where matters ruled on by the Speaker of Parliament are brought before the Supreme Court for review, sometimes with astonishing speed.

Prof. Gyampo emphasized that “Parliament, being a Master of its own processes must find its own ways to address its challenges.”

He argued that allowing the courts to frequently intervene in parliamentary decisions threatens the very fabric of parliamentary democracy. For Prof. Gyampo, this judicial overreach could stifle Parliament’s ability to function independently, as it would lead to continuous interference from the courts.

He stressed that such actions erode the integrity of Parliament as an institution and might render its decisions secondary to judicial rulings.

“If people can get the Supreme Court to sit and decide over matters ruled on by the Speaker of Parliament with near speed of light, then our Parliamentary Democracy may have no future.
“[This is] because we may always have to be going to the courts to be overturning Parliament’s decisions.”
Professor Ransford Gyampo

In Ghana’s democracy, Parliament plays a unique role as the only arm of government that is directly representative of the people. While the President is elected by a majority of voters, not all citizens vote for the person who assumes the office of the President.

Similarly, judges, unlike in some other jurisdictions where they are directly elected to promote accountability, are appointed in Ghana.

Therefore, Prof. Gyampo argues, Parliament, being the only institution where the entire citizenry is represented, holds a special place in Ghana’s democracy. He points out that sovereignty, at least theoretically, could be located at Parliament’s doorstep, given its representative nature.

“In locating sovereignty among the organs of government, at least in theory, one is not wrong in placing it at the doorstep of Parliament.
“This is elementary in Government 1 for those of us who studied it for our O’Level Exams.”
Professor Ransford Gyampo

This assertion emphasized the foundational principle that Parliament, more than any other institution, directly embodies the will of the people, and as such, should be treated with the corresponding respect and independence by the other arms of government.

Judicial Review vs. Judicial Interference

While judicial review is a well-established concept within constitutional democracies, Prof. Gyampo warned that judicial overreach could undermine parliamentary authority.

Judicial review grants courts the power to assess laws made by Parliament to ensure they conform to constitutional principles. However, the professor drew a sharp distinction between this legitimate function and what he called “judicial interference.”

He cautioned that frequent judicial involvement in parliamentary decisions could upset the balance of power and lead to tensions between Parliament and the Judiciary. “This may not be judicial review, but judicial interference,” Prof. Gyampo stated, warning that such interference could harm the democratic process.

Strong-willed parliamentary leaders, such as Speaker Bagbin, are likely to push back, potentially leading to a crisis that could destabilize the country’s democratic institutions.

Prof. Gyampo’s critique ultimately called for the courts to exercise restraint and respect the independence of Parliament. While the Judiciary plays an essential role in maintaining the rule of law, it must, according to Prof. Gyampo, recognize its place within the broader balance of power.

He pointed out that in mature democracies, judicial deference to legislative actions is a common practice, allowing for the smooth functioning of the democratic process. Courts are expected to review legislation with caution, respecting the fact that elected representatives of the people have the primary responsibility of making laws.

In his view, a failure to recognize this could lead to confrontations between Parliament and the Judiciary, with potentially destabilizing consequences. “The courts must note their place within the balance of power and must not do anything that oversteps their boundaries,” he warned.

The coming weeks and months may reveal how Parliament, led by Speaker Bagbin, responds to these challenges, and whether a more harmonious balance of power can be achieved in the years ahead.