The Minority Leader and Member of Parliament for Effutu, Alexander Kwamena Afenyo-Markin, has formally submitted a motion to the Speaker of Parliament, urging a review of the First Deputy Speaker’s March 5, 2025, ruling that blocked a parliamentary debate on the mass revocation of public sector appointments.
The motion, filed on June 12, argues that the ruling misapplies the sub judice rule, undermines Parliament’s constitutional mandate, and sets a dangerous precedent for Ghana’s democracy.
The controversy stems from the First Deputy Speaker Hon. Bernard Ahiafor’s decision to sustain an objection to Private Members’ Motion No. 16, which sought to discuss a directive from the Chief of Staff leading to widespread job terminations in the public sector. The ruling cited pending litigation in Henry Nana Boakye v. Attorney General (Suit No: J1/12/2025) as grounds for halting debate, invoking the sub judice rule under Standing Orders 103(f) and 123(1).
Afenyo-Markin’s submission, presented under Order 127 of the Standing Orders (2023), contends that the decision misconstrues parliamentary procedure and violates constitutional principles, particularly the separation of powers. He argues that the ruling stifles Parliament’s oversight role and risks allowing strategic litigation to paralyze legislative functions.
“This ruling threatens the very foundations of our democracy. Parliament cannot be silenced simply because a lawsuit exists. The people of Ghana deserve to have their representatives address urgent issues like the mass job losses caused by this directive,” Afenyo-Markin stated.
The motion draws heavily on the 1992 Constitution, particularly Articles 93(2), 115, and 116, which enshrine Parliament’s legislative authority and protect members’ freedom of speech. He also cites the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vincent Ekow Assafuah v. Attorney General (Writ No: J1/18/2025, decided May 6, 2025), where the Court held that constitutional bodies cannot be restrained from their mandates by mere litigation unless a court issues an explicit injunction.
Quoting Justice Kulendi’s concurring opinion, Afenyo-Markin emphasized: “The Supreme Court made it clear that only an express judicial injunction, backed by evidence of irreparable harm, can halt constitutional functions. No such injunction exists here, and Parliament must not surrender its role to speculative concerns.”
The motion further references Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice, which underscores that the sub judice rule is discretionary and includes exceptions for matters of national importance, such as the job cuts affecting thousands of Ghanaians.
Hon. Afenyo-Markin also invoked a 2012 ruling by former Speaker Joyce Bamford-Addo to bolster his case. In that instance, Bamford-Addo overruled an objection to parliamentary action on the Representation of the People (Parliamentary Constituencies) Instrument, 2012, despite pending litigation, noting the absence of a judicial injunction.
“Madam Speaker Bamford-Addo’s ruling is a beacon of parliamentary wisdom. She demonstrated that Parliament’s constitutional duties cannot be halted by unadjudicated court matters. We must follow her example to protect our democratic mandate,” Afenyo-Markin said in his submission.
The Minority Leader warned that upholding the Deputy Speaker’s ruling could incentivize strategic litigation to silence Parliament, undermining democratic accountability. “If any citizen can file a lawsuit to stop parliamentary debate, the executive could exploit this to evade scrutiny,” he cautioned. “This is a dangerous precedent that we must reject.”
Political analyst Dr. Kofi Mensah echoed this concern, noting, “The sub judice rule is meant to prevent prejudice to judicial proceedings, not to paralyze Parliament. The job cuts are a matter of national importance, and MPs must be allowed to debate them without fear of litigation.”
The Minority leader urged the Speaker to set aside the March 5 ruling and restore Motion No. 16 to the parliamentary agenda. He also called for clearer guidelines on applying the sub judice rule, emphasizing that only specific evidence of prejudice—not speculation—should limit parliamentary debate.
“We are not here to adjudicate legal rights but to hold the executive accountable and address the hardships faced by thousands of Ghanaians. The Speaker must act to reaffirm Parliament’s independence and ensure the voices of the people are heard,” Afenyo-Markin stressed.
The Speaker, however, emphasized that he lacks the constitutional and procedural authority to overturn decisions taken by the House in his absence, stressing the supremacy of the collective will of Parliament over individual roles, including that of the Speaker.
He, however, assured members that a formal debate would be held on the Minority leader’s motion and MPs given the opportunity to express their views, which could influence future reforms under the anticipated constitutional review.