Ghana’s Democracy in Uncharted Waters as the Speaker of Parliament and Chief Justice locked Horns

The current developments in Ghana’s Parliament reflect a delicate balancing act between the legislative and judicial branches of government, underscoring a potential constitutional crisis. The Speaker of Parliament, Rt. Hon. Alban Bagbin suspended Parliament indefinitely in response to a contentious decision regarding four parliamentary seats. This decision came after former Minority Leader, Hon. Haruna Iddrisu, informed the Speaker that four members planned to contest the 2024 elections under different party banners than those under which they were originally elected. This step effectively left these seats vacant and the Speaker’s declaration was met with immediate resistance, prompting the Majority Leader, Hon. Alexander Afenyo Markin, to contest the ruling in the Supreme Court.

The Majority Leader’s legal response included an ex parte application requesting the suspension of the Speaker’s ruling. The speed with which the Supreme Court granted this request — in just under two hours — sparked public debate and criticism. Ghanaians questioned the expedited nature of the court’s response, especially given previous instances where significant public interest cases have been pending without such urgency. This has raised concerns about perceived inconsistencies in judicial prioritization and has led to allegations that political pressures might influence judicial decisions in such high-profile cases.

The Speaker’s choice to adjourn Parliament indefinitely reflects a cautious approach aimed at preventing a deeper constitutional impasse. Rather than proceeding with business under a potentially fractured legislative body, the Speaker took a step back to explore legal recourse, intending to challenge the Supreme Court’s ruling through formal channels. This action underscores the Speaker’s commitment to defending parliamentary independence and authority as a co-equal branch of government, free from judicial interference. His decision to pursue legal means rather than an outright confrontation within Parliament emphasizes respect for constitutional processes, even amidst intense political strain.

This is not the first time Ghana’s Supreme Court has clashed with Parliament. The court previously intervened in the legislative process when it issued a restraining order to halt the transmission of the LGBTQ+ bill to the President for assent, despite the bill being passed by Parliament. Such interventions by the judiciary have fueled a larger debate about the separation of powers and the judiciary’s role in legislative matters. While the judiciary is constitutionally empowered to interpret the law and protect constitutional rights, recurrent interventions in parliamentary affairs may be seen as encroachments on legislative autonomy, potentially setting a precedent that could impact Ghana’s democratic framework.

As Parliament awaits the Speaker’s directive on how to proceed, speculation abounds. The Speaker’s close advisors have indicated that he intends to assert his authority and defend the legislature’s independence. Should the Speaker succeed in challenging the Supreme Court’s ruling, it could reshape the understanding of checks and balances within Ghana’s democratic system. On the other hand, if the Supreme Court’s interventions are upheld, it may reinforce the judiciary’s capacity to overrule parliamentary decisions, thereby influencing future legislative actions.

This situation reflects broader democratic challenges facing Ghana and serves as a microcosm of the difficulties that many constitutional democracies encounter. At stake is not only the immediate question of who holds these contested parliamentary seats but also the larger principles of governance, including legislative autonomy, judicial restraint, and respect for democratic processes. As these events unfold, they may set significant precedents for Ghana’s governance structure, signaling to both Ghanaian citizens and international observers how resilient the country’s democratic institutions truly are in the face of internal friction.

Ultimately, the resolution of this impasse may hinge on whether Ghana’s democratic framework can withstand the strain of these tensions while maintaining a clear boundary between the authority of its judiciary and the independence of its legislature.