The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, has announced that Parliament will reconvene on Monday, December 16, 2024.
However, he stated that the venue for the 7th meeting of the 4th session of the 8th Parliament will be communicated to Members of Parliament in due course.
This announcement was made in a notice issued on December 2 and signed by the Speaker.
“Pursuant to order 58 of the standing orders of the Parliament of Ghana, I Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, Speaker of Parliament, hereby give notice that the seventh meeting of the fourth session of the eighth parliament of the Fourth Republic shall commence on Monday, the 16th day of December 2024 at ten o’clock in the forenoon at a place to be appointed by the speaker in due course.”
This decision means that Parliament will resume after the 2024 general elections, during which new Members of Parliament for both the Majority and Minority sides will be elected.
The move to reconvene comes after Speaker Bagbin declined a request by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin to call Parliament back on November 28 and 29 to address pressing matters. Speaker Bagbin maintained that parliamentary activities would remain suspended until after the December 7 general elections.
The adjournment followed a suspension of proceedings by Speaker Bagbin, who cited the absence of a prepared agenda from the Business Committee as the reason for the break.
On Tuesday, November 12, the Supreme Court overturned Speaker Bagbin’s decision to declare four parliamentary seats vacant, ruling in favour of a challenge brought by Afenyo-Markin.
In its detailed judgment released on Thursday, November 14, the five justices who sided with the Majority Leader clarified that a parliamentary seat can only be declared vacant if a lawmaker switches political parties while retaining their position in Parliament.
The ruling further stated that the Speaker’s decision could not take effect within the current parliamentary term.
However, two dissenting justices argued that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the case, highlighting a divide in the interpretation of the Court’s authority on such matters.
