<\/p>\n
Private legal practitioner Bobby Banson has argued that the Supreme Court is not the only body authorized to interpret the Constitution, particularly in matters relating to parliamentary proceedings.<\/p>\n
His comments were made in the wake of ongoing discussions about Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin\u2019s controversial decision to declare four parliamentary seats vacant, a ruling that has since been stayed by the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled to suspend the Speaker\u2019s declaration, halting its implementation pending further review.<\/p>\n
Speaking on The Big Issue<\/em><\/strong> on Saturday, October 19, 2024, Mr. Banson defended Speaker Bagbin\u2019s actions, asserting that Parliament has the right to interpret and apply constitutional provisions within its own proceedings. He stressed that the legislative arm of government should have the autonomy to manage its internal matters, including constitutional interpretations related to its operations.<\/p>\n \u201cI do not think the speaker did anything wrong with the ruling; not wrong as in the merit, but the procedure. I do not think that the speaker does not have the jurisdiction to interpret and apply the Constitution as he did.<\/p>\n \u201cI do not think the Supreme Court is the only institution of government that has the right to interpret the Constitution in the context of the parliamentary session. As it has been said over and over again, Parliament is the master of its own rules and the rules of Parliament are not limited to the standing orders.<\/p>\n \u201cIt also includes provisions of the constitution in respect of parliamentary proceedings. So, if there are issues like this that have been brought to the attention of the speaker. I think the statements made on the floor were from both sides on that day before the speaker adjourned to deliver his ruling.<\/p>\n \u201cIt means that the majority leader had the opportunity to express his opinion and the minority leader also did and same as the other members and the speaker gave his ruling. In his ruling, he had to interpret the law that was applicable at that time. So, I don\u2019t think he went beyond his jurisdiction or entered into the Supreme Court\u2019s jurisdiction,\u201d he stated.<\/p>\n The Speaker\u2019s ruling, made after a motion by former Minority Leader Haruna Iddrisu, invoked constitutional provisions that mandate MPs who seek to run as independent candidates to vacate their seats.<\/p>\n The affected MPs\u2014Cynthia Morrison (Agona West), Kwadjo Asante (Suhum), Andrew Amoako Asiamah (Fomena), and Peter Kwakye Ackah (Amenfi Central)\u2014were declared to have breached these provisions by either switching political affiliations or indicating their intention to run as independents in the upcoming election.<\/p>\n Ahead of the Speaker\u2019s ruling on Thursday, Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin took urgent legal action, filing with the Supreme Court on Tuesday, October 15, to seek clarification on the status of the four MPs, who had decided to contest the upcoming December 2024 elections either as members of the NPP or as independent candidates.<\/p>\n Supreme Court quashes Bagbin\u2019s ruling<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n