Ghana’s political landscape has been thrown into uncertainty following the Supreme Court’s 5-2 ruling that declared the Speaker of Parliament’s action in pronouncing four parliamentary seats vacant as unconstitutional.
By this ruling, the court affirmed that the four seats remain occupied, effectively invalidating the Speaker’s earlier decision. The judgment concluded that the Speaker had acted beyond his constitutional authority, sparking critical questions about the legal and political repercussions of his actions.
Chief among these concerns: could the Speaker face jail time if he fails to comply with the ruling?
Under Article 2, subsections 4 and 5 of the 1992 Constitution, defying a Supreme Court order is a high crime punishable by up to ten years in prison and a lifetime ban from holding public office. However, legal expert Amanda Clinton believes the Speaker is unlikely to face such severe consequences. Drawing on over three decades of parliamentary experience, she argues that the Speaker is skilled enough to navigate the legal and procedural complexities of this case, positioning himself to avoid prosecution.
At the core of the ruling is Article 97 of the Constitution, which outlines the conditions under which parliamentary seats may be declared vacant. The Supreme Court’s decision effectively strips the Speaker of unilateral authority to make such declarations, signaling a clear check on his powers.
Yet Clinton anticipates the Speaker may use procedural mechanisms to delay enforcement of the court’s ruling. She points out that if Parliament is recalled but key factions fail to show up, the Speaker could suspend proceedings indefinitely, prolonging the standoff.
This political stalemate is already taking shape. Clinton notes that Parliament was recently recalled, but the NPP failed to attend. She predicts the party will soon write to request another recall, which could take up to seven days. If the opposition NDC also abstains, as they have hinted, quorum will not be met, and the Speaker will likely suspend proceedings again.
The implications of this deadlock extend beyond legal maneuvering. Parliament’s inability to meet jeopardizes critical legislative work, including passing bills, vetting Supreme Court justices, and approving the 2025 budget. Clinton warns that with elections just weeks away, continued delays could render Parliament ineffective until a new administration takes over in 2025.
As Clinton aptly puts it, “The Supreme Court can make their decision, but Parliament must decide whether to show up.” This observation underscores a fundamental tension: while the court can issue rulings, it cannot compel MPs to participate in proceedings, raising questions about the enforceability of judicial decisions in a highly politicized environment.
With December 7th fast approaching, Clinton suggests that the resolution of these issues may rest on the electoral outcome. Whether under an NDC or NPP administration, the next parliament will likely inherit the challenges posed by this impasse.
YouTube: @clintonconsultancyafrica
Email: [email protected]
