KEY POINTS
- Ghana’s Supreme Court affirms exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional interpretations, dismissing Speaker Alban Bagbin’s request.
- Court rules parliamentary membership questions fall under the Supreme Court if they involve constitutional interpretation, not the High Court.
- Dispute centers on whether MPs vacate seats by running as independents.
Ghana’s Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected an application by Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin, who sought to reverse a recent ruling suspending his decision to declare four parliamentary seats vacant.
The court’s decision, delivered by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, affirmed the Supreme Court’s exclusive authority to interpret and enforce constitutional provisions as outlined in Articles 2 and 130(1) of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution.
High court handles facts, supreme court interprets law
Bagbin’s application argued that the High Court should handle questions regarding the vacant seats, referencing Article 99, which he contended assigns the High Court jurisdiction over parliamentary membership disputes.
However, Chief Justice Torkornoo clarified that the High Court’s jurisdiction applies only to factual disputes, while constitutional interpretation remains the purview of the Supreme Court.
Case involves MPs running as independents
The case, brought by plaintiff Afenyo Markin against both the Speaker and the Attorney General, focuses on whether four members of Ghana’s 8th Parliament who filed as independent candidates for upcoming elections have, in doing so, forfeited their seats under Article 97(1)(g). This constitutional clause mandates that a parliamentary seat becomes vacant if the holder contests an election as an independent candidate.
In her ruling, Chief Justice Torkornoo stated that the Speaker’s request reflected “a misapprehension and misinformation of the law.” She emphasized that Article 130 provides the Supreme Court with the jurisdiction to interpret Article 97(1)(g), confirming the court’s role in resolving the issue.
