The Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin’s application to reverse a ruling barring his declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacant has been rejected by the Supreme Court of Ghana.
This ruling contributes to the ongoing legal discussion about the extent of the Speaker’s authority and the judiciary’s involvement in parliamentary matters.
Speaker Bagbin intended to challenge the Supreme Court’s decision that had temporarily suspended his ruling on the four seats.
The Speaker additionally attempted to dismiss a writ submitted by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, who had asked for legal intervention to stop the Speaker from making any more statements about the contested seats.
Bagbin, represented by lawyer Thaddeus Sory, argued that the court had gone too far by suspending his ruling, stating that it was a parliamentary decision that fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. He argued that since the Speaker’s actions were not judicial in nature, they should not be eligible for stays of execution, which are usually reserved for court decisions.

Bagbin’s filing contended that the Supreme Court’s authority to stay execution of rulings is restricted to its own decisions and those of lower courts, as outlined in the 1992 Constitution and related statutes. However, this power does not extend to rulings made by the Speaker of Parliament, who is not a part of the judicial hierarchy.
The Speaker made it clear that his rulings, as head of an independent branch of government, should not be evaluated under the same review mechanisms as judicial decisions. He was worried that the court’s involvement could jeopardize the constitutional division of powers in Ghana.
In her ruling, the Chief Justice emphasized the need to promptly address the dispute to prevent irreparable harm to the constituencies and MPs potentially losing their seats just weeks before the December 7 election. She explained that issuing a 10-day interim order on Article 97(1)(g) as interpreted by the Speaker could have a detrimental impact on hundreds of thousands of Ghanaians left without MPs and without the possibility of by-elections.
She emphasized the importance of the Supreme Court expediting proceedings by shortening the standard 14-day period and allowing constitutional actions to proceed through a statement of case. This process would require parties to submit their claims within seven days and promptly resolve the issues at hand.
If all parties had followed these directives within the recommended timeframe, Chief Justice stated that the case could have been settled within the 10-day period requested by the applicant.