Ghana’s Parliament has formally responded to the Chief Justice, rejecting a lawsuit seeking clarification of Article 97(1) of the 1992 Constitution.
In a statement by the Deputy Clerk of Parliament, Speaker Alban Bagbin emphasized that the suit, served by three bailiffs on September 16, 2024, was improperly delivered. He argued that this service breached Article 117 of the Constitution, which prohibits court processes from being served on the Speaker, Members of Parliament, or the Clerk of Parliament while they are attending, en route to, or returning from parliamentary duties.
Speaker Bagbin also noted that the bailiffs’ actions violated a circular from the Judicial Secretary, reinforcing the protections provided under Article 117 to ensure Parliament members are shielded from legal interruptions during official duties.
Parliamentary leadership expressed concern over the incident, stating it undermines the independence of Parliament and reiterated their commitment to uphold constitutional protections for parliamentary proceedings and officials.
On October 18, the Supreme Court granted a stay of execution on Speaker Bagbin’s ruling that had declared four parliamentary seats vacant, effectively allowing the affected MPs to continue representing their constituencies until a final ruling is made. The application for the stay was submitted by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo Markin, who sought to halt the Speaker’s decision impacting three MPs from his caucus and one from the National Democratic Congress (NDC).
A panel of Supreme Court justices, led by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo, is overseeing the case.
Amid ongoing tensions over the vacant seats, Speaker Bagbin adjourned Parliament’s session on October 22. The adjournment followed a walkout by New Patriotic Party (NPP) MPs, leaving National Democratic Congress (NDC) legislators occupying the Majority side of the Chamber, citing a dispute over majority status. This adjournment underscores the heightened tensions within Parliament as members await further developments on the vacant seat issue and the Supreme Court’s final ruling.