In light of a recent Supreme Court ruling that overturned Speaker Alban Bagbin's decision to declare four parliamentary seats vacant, prominent Ghanaian lawyer Martin Kpebu has called on Bagbin to resist the decision. Kpebu argues that the Speakerβs original move underscores the importance of Parliament's authority to manage its own affairs, warning that judicial interference in parliamentary matters could weaken Ghana's democratic foundation and blur the separation of powers.
The Supreme Court's ruling, led by a seven-member panel with Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo presiding, ruled in favor of Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, who argued that Bagbinβs actions went beyond his constitutional mandate. The Speakerβs decision to declare the seats vacant, according to the courtβs 5-2 majority, should have undergone judicial review before implementation. The affected MPsβCynthia Mamle Morrison (Agona West), Kwadwo Asante (Suhum), Peter Kwakye-Ackah (Amenfi Central), and Andrew Asiamah (Fomena)βeither changed party affiliations or decided to run as independents ahead of the upcoming 2024 elections, sparking the debate over their parliamentary status.
During an interview on November 12, Kpebu emphasized the significance of Bagbinβs initial decision, asserting that it aligns with Parliamentβs right to oversee its internal governance. Kpebu contends that by challenging the Supreme Court's ruling, Bagbin can set a critical precedent for parliamentary independence, thereby reinforcing Ghanaβs democratic structure. Kpebu remarked, The Speaker has already expressed concern about perceived collusion between the judiciary and executive branches. His resistance would reaffirm his stance and could foster a greater dialogue about judicial autonomy and its implications on democracy.
Kpebu believes that Bagbinβs pushback could become a key moment in Ghanaian governance, underlining the need for judicial independence and impartiality. In his view, the Supreme Courtβs decision reveals an overreach that could potentially diminish the judiciaryβs strength and authority in the eyes of the public. He suggests that such decisions are reason enough to initiate discussions about a constitutional review to ensure balanced governance across branches.
Kpebuβs remarks echo sentiments shared by Speaker Bagbin, who has previously voiced concerns about judicial overreach in parliamentary matters. In Bagbinβs view, the judiciary should avoid decisions that intrude on Parliamentβs constitutional role to regulate itself. According to Kpebu, Bagbinβs stance could pave the way for greater respect for the boundaries between Ghanaβs government branches and ultimately fortify the democratic framework.
As Ghana approaches its 2024 elections, this debate over the separation of powers is likely to grow more intense. With contentious issues surrounding parliamentary vacancies and potential shifts in party affiliations, Kpebuβs call for Bagbin to stand firm could catalyze broader discussions about judicial and parliamentary roles in the countryβs evolving political landscape.
In conclusion, Kpebu advocates for the Speakerβs proactive stance as a step toward a more robust democracy. He suggests that Bagbinβs resistance would not only emphasize the autonomy of Parliament but could also push for a greater understanding of the judiciaryβs role in democratic governance. As these issues unfold, Ghanaians are watching closely to see how this power dynamic shapes the future of parliamentary authority and judicial independence.
This discussion brings to light the need for constitutional clarity and the ongoing challenge of balancing power within Ghana's democratic institutions, with Speaker Bagbin's stance being pivotal in potentially reshaping the boundaries of judicial and legislative influence.
blogpay
Total Comments: 0