Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, a senior lecturer of public law at the University of Ghana School of Law, Legon, has said the Speaker of Parliament couldn’t have acted on the ruling of the Supreme Court last Tuesday because the House was not properly constituted.
According to him, the orders of the Supreme Court could not have been adhered to or objected by the Speaker himself, but rather a complete constitution of Parliament.
However, he says since the House was not properly constituted, there was no way the decision of the Supreme Court could have been acted upon.
The Constitutional Law lecturer in his analysis on the issue on the KeyPoints Saturday, October 26, 2024, indicated that when a court directs an institution to enforce something, it is not undertaken by the court itself but rather the institution in question.
In the case of Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, the private legal practitioner and law lecturer noted that he does not unilaterally takes a decision for Parliament since he is not a member but a referee in the House.
He also argued that the Supreme Court’s verdict asking for stay of execution meant the ruling of the Speaker should be reversed.
He, nonetheless, explained that a stay of execution is only issued at a time when there is an ongoing process. But in the case of the four MPs in question, they had already vacated their seats meaning the court’s ruling was seeking a reversal.
This, he explains couldn’t have been done when Parliament did not have a quorum.
“When you read the two together, it appears the Supreme Court is saying that we should reverse the situation. We should reverse the situation where the four MPs, because at the time of the order, the four MPs, their seats have been declared vacant. So, if you want to reverse it, that would require a parliamentary decision, because when the court directs a company, let’s say TV3, that you should reinstate an employee, the court cannot itself come and reinstate the employee. It would take the management of TV3 to carry out that reversal of reinstating the employee.
“Now, as at the time the Speaker was on the floor, the House was not properly constituted for parliamentary business, which means that even if the Speaker wanted a decision to implement the ruling or the direction of the Supreme Court, which is their reversal, it couldn’t have happened because the Speaker himself doesn’t take decisions in Parliament. It is the Members of Parliament who have the power to legislate,” he explained.
The discussion follows a ruling by the Speaker of Parliament Thursday, October 17, 2024, where some four seats were declared vacant. The declaration, subsequently reduced the membership of the governing NPP, who were then Majority to 135, with the opposition NDC, who were the Minority, remaining with 136 members to assume the Majority position.
The ruling, which was sent to court by the leader of the NPP MPs, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, was stayed by the Supreme Court bringing controversy as to who is now Majority and Minority in the House.
After failing to attain quorum at sitting on Tuesday, October 22, the House was adjourned indefinitely by the Speaker.
Meanwhile, the NPP Members in Parliament have initiated processes for the House to be recalled. A citizen, has also gone to court to stop the Speaker from recalling the House.
Vacant seats brouhaha: Supreme Court not exerting authority over Parliament – Antwi-Danso
