Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin has announced the indefinite adjournment of parliamentary proceedings, following a tumultuous session on Tuesday, October 22, marked by intense disputes between Members of Parliament (MPs) from the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC) over which caucus holds the Majority.
During the adjournment, Speaker Bagbin mentioned receiving communication from the Supreme Court, which instructed him to stay his earlier ruling that declared four parliamentary seats vacant. However, he did not provide details on the Court’s directive, leaving MPs and observers uncertain about its full implications.
Bagbin explained that although the House had enough MPs to conduct business, they lacked the numbers required to make decisions.
“Hon. members, we do not have at least half of all Members of Parliament present. In view of the current circumstances, including questions about the composition and constitution of Parliament, and considering the public interest, I will proceed, in accordance with standing order 59, to adjourn the house indefinitely, sine die,” he stated.
The indefinite adjournment follows ongoing legal disputes over the four seats Bagbin declared vacant on October 17—two from the NPP, one from the NDC, and one from an independent MP. The affected MPs are Cynthia Morrison (Agona West), Andrew Asiamah (Fomena), Kwadjo Asante (Suhum), and Peter Kwakye Ackah (Amenfi Central).
Earlier in the session, NPP MPs vacated the Chamber, leaving NDC members to occupy both sides of the House. This walkout, in response to tensions over the Majority designation, resulted in a lack of quorum, prompting Bagbin to cite it as a reason for adjourning proceedings.
The Speaker’s decision not to fully disclose the contents of the Supreme Court’s communication leaves critical questions unanswered regarding the status of the vacant seats and the overall legitimacy of Parliament’s composition.
With Parliament adjourned indefinitely, uncertainty looms as both the NPP and NDC await further clarification on the case before the Supreme Court.