The Supreme Court has dismissed an application by the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, to set aside its recent orders to stay the execution of his ruling, declaring four parliamentary seats vacant.
The dismissal, announced on Wednesday, October 30, 2024 by a five-member panel, led by Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, deemed the motion without merit.
This ruling follows an initial Supreme Court order on October 18, which temporarily halted Speaker Bagbin’s October 17 declaration, that the seats of four MPs were vacant.
The court’s injunction indicated that the MPs be allowed to continue serving until a final resolution, which the Speaker contested, claiming the Supreme Court overstepped judicial boundaries into parliamentary matters.
RULING
Chief Justice Torkornoo, in her ruling, cited provisions within Ghana’s 1992 Constitution that grant the Supreme Court authority over issues demanding constitutional interpretation and enforcement.
She emphasised that public officials, including the Speaker, President and Vice President are legally obligated to comply with court rulings.
Non-compliance could result in a prison sentence of up to 10 years and disqualification from holding public office for a decade.
The Speaker’s legal team, represented by Thaddeus Sory, had argued that the court lacked jurisdiction in the matter, asserting that its authority did not extend to parliamentary rulings.
Mr. Sory argued that the stay of execution was “improper”, as the Speaker’s ruling was non-judicial, further contending that a stay could apply only to judicial bodies, not Parliament.
EX-PARTE
An additional point of contention was the ex-parte nature of the Supreme Court’s initial order. Speaker Bagbin’s Counsel claimed this denied the Speaker a fair hearing and violated principles of natural justice.
They asserted that the case did not involve exceptional urgency to warrant an ex-parte application and requested that the Speaker be granted a hearing before any further orders.
However, Paa Kwesi Abaidoo, Counsel for the plaintiff, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, who had originally challenged the Speaker’s ruling, defended the ex-parte approach.
He argued that allowing the seats to remain vacant could harm the affected constituencies by leaving them unrepresented.
Mr. Abaidoo maintained that the Speaker was aware of the Supreme Court’s processes, but proceeded with his declaration regardless, justifying the urgency in obtaining the court’s injunction.
Justice Torkornoo’s panel, including Justices Mariama Owusu, Kwame Adibu Asiedu, Ernest Yao Gaewu and Yaw Darko Asare, upheld its ruling.
OBJECTION
The court also dismissed an objection by the Speaker’s legal team to Justice Gaewu’s presence on the panel due to his prior political affiliation with the New Patriotic Party.
The court found that Justice Gaewu’s past political associations did not compromise his impartiality in the case.
Furthermore, the court addressed objections from the Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, who sought to strike out sections of the Speaker’s filing as “scandalous and abusive.”
PARTISANSHIP
Specifically, Dame cited paragraphs suggesting bias from the Chief Justice and implying partisanship. While the court acknowledged the objections, it deferred its final judgment on these points.
The Attorney-General challenged the Speaker’s decision to hire Thaddeus Sory, arguing that the Speaker’s continued engagement of Mr. Sory was unlawful, since by law, the Attorney-General is responsible for representing all government institutions.
He stated that Mr. Sory lacked the legal authority to participate in the case. However, the court did not rule on this issue.
The Supreme Court has scheduled November 11 for a substantive hearing on the case, where a seven-member panel will review the constitutional implications surrounding the parliamentary seats.
