The Supreme Court has adjourned proceedings until November 11, 2024, to deliver its judgment on the case regarding the four vacant parliamentary seats. The case, initiated by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, challenges Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin’s decision to declare the seats vacant.
During the latest hearing, the Attorney General (AG) contested the Speaker’s choice of private legal representation by Thaddeus Sory, arguing that hiring external counsel without prior approval from the Public Procurement Authority (PPA) was unlawful. According to the AG, a PPA letter dated December 2022 had rejected a request from the Speaker’s office to seek private legal representation instead of using services from the AG’s department.
The AG asserted that the Speaker’s office should rely on the Attorney General’s office for representation in legal matters of this nature and claimed that the absence of PPA approval renders the use of private counsel invalid. This issue follows a recent Supreme Court ruling that dismissed Speaker Bagbin’s motion to reverse a temporary injunction that nullified his declaration of the four seats as vacant.
The dispute arose when Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin declared four seats vacant, citing his interpretation of Article 97(1)(g) of the Constitution. This move sparked a legal and political dispute, with Majority Leader Afenyo-Markin filing a case with the Supreme Court, claiming that the Speaker exceeded his constitutional authority by acting unilaterally in declaring the seats vacant without judicial approval or facilitating by-elections.
In response, the Supreme Court placed a temporary hold on the Speaker’s decision pending a final judgment. Speaker Bagbin then filed an appeal to overturn this interim injunction, arguing through his lawyer Thaddeus Sory that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over parliamentary rulings, as they fall outside judicial authority.
However, Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo dismissed the Speaker’s application, affirming that the Court has the authority to intervene when parliamentary actions are alleged to breach constitutional provisions. The Chief Justice noted that a lack of parliamentary representation could harm constituents and emphasized the importance of a timely resolution, especially with the upcoming December 7 elections.
The Court directed both parties to submit statements of claims within a week to expedite the hearing. Ahead of the November 11 ruling, the Attorney General reiterated objections to Speaker Bagbin’s choice of private counsel due to the absence of PPA approval, reaffirming that the Attorney General’s office should handle legal matters involving parliamentary actions.
This case highlights broader constitutional issues, including the separation of powers, the judiciary’s oversight role, and the boundaries of parliamentary authority in interpreting Ghana’s Constitution.
SOURCE: https://dew360.net
Join our WhatsApp channel: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VakDz4u9RZATWh53yC1a
