The Supreme Court has adjourned to November 11, 2024, for judgment in the substantive case regarding the four vacated parliamentary seats, brought by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin against Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin.
During the proceedings, the Attorney General (AG) raised objections to the continued legal representation of Speaker Bagbin by private lawyer Thaddeus Sory, arguing it was unlawful due to the absence of prior approval from the Public Procurement Authority (PPA).
According to the AG, a December 2022 PPA letter denied a request from the Speaker’s office to hire external legal representation instead of utilizing services from the AG’s department.
The AG contended that in this matter, the Speaker’s office should rely on the Attorney General’s office for legal representation, and the lack of PPA approval invalidates the Speaker’s choice of private counsel.
This hearing follows the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the Speaker’s motion seeking to overturn an earlier ruling, which temporarily reversed his decision declaring the four seats vacant.
Background
The case centers around a decision by Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin, who declared four parliamentary seats vacant based on his interpretation of Article 97(1)(g) of the Constitution. The move has generated significant legal and political contention, with the Majority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, filing a suit in the Supreme Court to challenge the Speaker’s ruling.
Afenyo-Markin argued that the Speaker overstepped his constitutional powers by unilaterally declaring the seats vacant without judicial oversight or allowing by-elections. In response, the Supreme Court issued an interim injunction, putting the Speaker’s ruling on hold pending a final decision on the matter.
In an attempt to reverse the Court’s interim decision, Speaker Bagbin filed an application urging the Supreme Court to overturn its ruling and permit his declaration of the seats as vacant.
Bagbin’s legal counsel, Thaddeus Sory, argued that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to halt decisions by Parliament since the Speaker’s rulings are non-judicial and fall outside the court’s authority to issue stays of execution. The Speaker’s motion also contended that judicial intervention in parliamentary decisions disrupts the separation of powers guaranteed by Ghana’s Constitution.
However, in a ruling delivered by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, the Supreme Court dismissed Bagbin’s application, underscoring the Court’s jurisdiction to intervene in parliamentary decisions when they are alleged to breach constitutional provisions.
Chief Justice Torkornoo highlighted the potential harm to constituents who would lose their parliamentary representation without the option of by-elections, particularly as Ghana approaches the December 7 general elections. She directed both parties to submit their statements of claims within seven days to facilitate an expedited hearing of the substantive issues in the case.
As the Court prepares to deliver judgment on November 11, 2024, the Attorney General has also raised objections to the Speaker’s choice of private counsel, Thaddeus Sory, citing the absence of approval from the Public Procurement Authority (PPA).
The AG argued that parliamentary matters should fall under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General’s office for legal representation, especially following the PPA’s 2022 rejection of a request from the Speaker’s office to procure external legal services.
The case has raised complex questions around the separation of powers, the limits of parliamentary authority, and the role of the judiciary in overseeing constitutional interpretations made within Parliament.
