KEY POINTS
- Speaker Alban Bagbin’s decision to reject a writ from Ghana’s Supreme Court has gained support from MP Clement Apaak.
- Bagbin argues that parliamentary independence limits the Court’s reach into legislative processes.
- The move highlights the ongoing debate over the separation of powers in Ghana’s governance.
The latest one is the Ghana’s Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin who recently refused to accept a writ from the Supreme Court arguing that the judiciary has no business with the activities of the parliament. This decision has since been supported by Member of Parliament (MP) Clement Apaak who supported Bagbin’s assertion of the need for legislative independence. The case throws the light on the conflict between the governments of Ghana regarding the extent of the judiciary’s interference in the matters of the parliament.
The argument made by Bagbin for parliamentary independence
Bagbin’s decision to reject the writ is premised on his understanding of the Ghanaian constitution which he says gives Parliament some level of immunity that cannot be interfered with by the judiciary. Bagbin also said that accepting the writ would lead to the erosion of the doctrine of the separation of powers and the encroachment of the judiciary on the powers of the legislative branch. In his interview to GhanaWeb, Bagbin further stressed on the principles of the Constitutional Provision saying that judiciary interfering in the affairs of the parliament is against the doctrine of the Separation of Powers.
MP clement Apaak’s support for Bagbin’s position
The Honorable MP Clement Apaak also expressed his full support for Bagbin and said that the Speaker of the House was right to act legally and in the best interest of the Parliament. According to Apaak, the judiciary should allow the legislative house perform its functions freely without any form of interferences from the judiciary because that is the expectance of Parliament in the Ghana’s democracy. The endorsement of the MP brings political implication to the decision of Bagbin on the grounds that other legislative effectively observe the progression in the hope of identifying the impact that may undermine legislative autonomy.
Apaak noted that Bagbin’s rejection was a continuation of a discourse on the extent to which the judiciary has the power to interdict Parliament. According to him, by refusing to accept the Supreme Court’s writ, Bagbin is protecting Parliament and its independence from precedents that may strengthen the judiciary at the expense of the legislature.
The topic of discussion is the separation of powers in Ghana.
The conflict between the Speaker’s office and the Supreme Court has generated a lot of debate on the checks and balances in Ghana. Both the judiciary and Parliament use the constitution, the former sees its oversight as a way of checking on the latter while the latter sees it as a way of preventing other organs from interfering with its functions. It remains unclear, however, and there are disagreements among legal scholars regarding the subject area either to provide clearer legal standards that would more clearly indicate precisely where judicial power is constitutionally supposed to end and legislative power is constitutionally supposed to begin.
For now, Bagbin’s rejection of the writ has brought discourses on Ghana’s governance structure, especially the independence of Parliament from the Judiciary as legislators and citizens discuss. It may lead to future reviews of clauses on parliamentary autonomy in the Ghanaian constitution, as the Supreme Court starts searching for means to redress the balance within the government or relies on judges for interpretations.
