A constitutional showdown looms in Ghana’s Parliament as lawmakers prepare to reconvene on Tuesday, following a series of dramatic events that have thrown the legislature’s leadership into unprecedented uncertainty.
It comes after the Supreme Court halted the Speaker’s declaration of vacant seats.
The crisis erupted last Thursday when Speaker Alban Bagbin declared four parliamentary seats vacant, citing Article 97(1)(g) of the 1992 Constitution. The ruling targeted MPs who had filed to contest the December 2024 elections under different political affiliations from their current parliamentary status.
At the heart of the controversy is the Fomena constituency’s Andrew Amoako Asiamah, whose political journey has twice triggered parliamentary upheaval. After being expelled from Parliament in 2020 for leaving the New Patriotic Party (NPP) to run as an independent candidate, Asiamah won the seat and subsequently aligned with the NPP, giving them a crucial majority of 138 against the National Democratic Congress’s (NDC) 137.
Asiamah’s decision to contest the 2024 elections on an NPP ticket has sparked fresh constitutional debates. The Speaker’s ruling also affected three other lawmakers—an NDC member planning to go independent and two NPP MPs also pursuing independent candidacies.
In his detailed ruling, Bagbin identified:
- Peter Yaw Kwakye-Ackah (NDC, Amenfi Central)—filing as independent
- Andrews Asiamah Amoako (Independent, Fomena)—filing under NPP
- Kwadjo Asante (NPP, Suhum)— filing as independent
- Cynthia Mamle Morrison (NPP, Agona West)—filing as independent
The Speaker emphasised that Article 97(1)(g) was designed to prevent “cross carpeting” or “party switching,” arguing that if the provision only applied to future parliaments, “there would have been no need for it to exist.”
The declaration would have dramatically altered Parliament’s composition, giving the opposition NDC a historic majority with 136 seats against the ruling NPP’s 135.
However, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, intervened within 24 hours, staying the Speaker’s declaration.
Supreme Court Intervention
Within 24 hours, the Supreme Court with a five-member panel, including Justices Mariama Owusu, Kwame Adibu Asiedu, Ernest Yao Gaewu, and Yaw Darko Asare, determined that vacating the seats would infringe on constituents’ rights. The court ordered Parliament to file its statement of case and memorandum of issues within seven days.
The court’s ruling highlighted several critical points:
- The urgent need to protect constituency representation
- Requirement for Parliament to file case statements within seven days
- Direction for affected MPs to continue their duties pending final determination
- Recognition of proper service of court documents to Parliament
The legal challenge was mounted by the NPP parliamentary group, led by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, who argued that the Speaker’s action was premature and legally flawed.
The court’s temporary stay maintains the current parliamentary numbers for ten days pending further hearings.
NDC’s Defiant Stance
NDC has, however, remained defiant despite the court’s intervention, insisting on their claim to majority status. This stance threatens to create tension when Parliament reconvenes, particularly regarding voting procedures and committee leadership positions.
Opposition Leader Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson made a resolute declaration on Sunday: “The NDC now constitutes the Majority Caucus in this 8th Parliament. We will jealously protect our new majority status and will not bow, retreat, or surrender our lawfully earned status.”
The NDC’s stance suggests potential confrontation when Parliament reconvenes, with Forson emphasizing that “any external attempts to interfere with parliamentary proceedings are unlawful and will not be tolerated.”
Former Speaker Professor Mike Oquaye had earlier argued that only the NPP could initiate complaints about seat vacation, not other parties or individuals. However, Speaker Bagbin’s ruling suggested a broader interpretation of the constitutional provision.
The situation raises several critical constitutional questions:
- Whether Article 97(1)(g) applies to future electoral intentions or only current party affiliations
- The timing of seat vacation in relation to electoral cycles
- The proper procedure for declaring seats vacant
- The rights of constituents versus constitutional requirements
Legal experts suggest this crisis could set important precedents for Ghana’s parliamentary democracy. The Supreme Court’s final ruling will likely influence how similar situations are handled in future parliaments.
The immediate impact will be felt in parliamentary business, with potential challenges to voting procedures, leadership arrangements, and committee work.
The crisis also adds another layer of complexity to Ghana’s political landscape as the country approaches the December 2024 general elections.
Some have expressed fear Members of Ghana’s Parliament will engage in a physical altercation again as it happened during a contentious vote for Speaker of Parliament in January 2021.
However, the underlying constitutional questions remain unresolved, promising continued legal and political battles in the coming weeks.
