Hubris of Speaker Alban Bagbin

When the Speaker of Parliament, Right Honourable A.S.K. Bagbin, addressed the media last Wednesday, he appeared to suggest that Parliament is supreme and that none of the other arms of government, the Executive and Judiciary can impeach the Legislature for as long as it acts within its jurisdiction.

He was right. Indeed, for as long as Parliament follows the due process and respects the rule of law in the performance of its functions, it would be left alone. 

The Speaker was quick to make reference to Article 115 of the 1992 Constitution, which provides that "there shall be freedom of speech, debate and proceedings in Parliament and that freedom shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament".

Once again, the Right Honourable Speaker was right.

However, and with all due respect, nothing in either of the propositions above suggests that anything that comes out of Parliament cannot be questioned.

The constitutional protection offered the right to free expression in Parliament is completely different from the question whether a particular decision of Parliament is lawful or not.

In other words, it is only about defamation that the law grants the House absolute privilege. 

It has nothing to do with decisions of Parliament.

Decisions are not just matters of free speech but of sound judgement and based on the rule of law and due process.

On his political complaints about his suspected conspiracy between the Executive and Judiciary to scuttle the power and authority of Parliament, what does he say about the fact that under our Constitution, some MPs serve under the Executive and as a loyal Christian, he must well be aware of the admonition of Jesus Christ that no one can serve two masters at the same objective levels.  

More so, he cited a litany of cases including the declaration by the former Speaker Prof. Aaron Mike Oquaye, that in deciding to go independent after coming to Parliament on the ticket of the NPP, the Fomena MP had vacated his seat.

He failed to make reference to the fact that, for instance, Hon Joe Osei-Owusu was in Parliament as an independent MP for Bekwai but filed to contest on the ticket of the NPP for Bekwai and was elected.

Hon Hawa Yakubu was an independent MP when she stood on the ticket of the NPP.

They were not expelled. But more germane to the issue is Article 99 (1) (a) which provides that "the High Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any question whether a person has been validly elected as a member of Parliament or the seat of a member has become vacant" and that 99(2) "A person aggrieved by the determination of the High Court under this article may appeal to the Court of Appeal".

If the Constitution intended to uphold the decision of Parliament as final and unimpeachable under Article 97, there would not have been this provision, a mandatory one reserving the final decision to the High Court and probably the Court of Appeal if the parties so desired to go on appeal.

It is equally imperative to state that the Constitution does not only provide expressly that "this Constitution shall be the supreme law of Ghana"  and goes on to provide under Article 2(1)  that "A person who alleges that (a) An enactment or anything contained in or done under the authority of that or any other enactment or b) any act or commission of any person is inconsistent with, or is in contravention of a provision of this Constitution, may bring an action in the Supreme Court for a declaration to that effect" .

Is the Speaker saying that he is above or not part of the “any person” prescribed in the law? But there is more, as  Article 2(2) states that, "the Supreme Court shall, for the purposes of a declaration under clause (2) of this article, make such orders and give such directions as it may consider appropriate for giving effect or enabling effect to be given, to the declaration so made". It does not end there. Article 2(3) provides that "any person or group of persons to whom an order or direction is addressed under clause (2) of this article by the Supreme Court , shall duly obey and carry out the terms of the order or direction".

Indeed, Article 2 (4) directs that "failure to obey or carry out the terms of an order or direction made or given under clause (2) of this article constitutes a high crime under this Constitution and shall, in the case of the President or Vice-President, constitute a ground for removal from office under this Constitution.

Since the Speaker is ranked third in the hierarchy of political offices, his disrespect of a decision of the apex court, cannot be treated any leniently. Hon Bagbin also made comments to the effect that Parliament represents the people, and acts in their name.

The Constitution recognises this fact but states emphatically under Article 125 (1) that "justice emanates from the people and shall be administered in the name of the Republic by the Judiciary which shall be independent and subject only to this Constitution".

Additionally, 125 (3) emphasises that "the judicial power of Ghana shall be vested in the Judiciary, accordingly,  neither the President nor Parliament nor any organ or agency of the President or Parliament shall have or be given final judicial power".

Is the Speaker not an agent of Parliament? These are the matters before us, even as Hon Bagbin gives himself accolades and, as Twi speakers say, "bo neho nsamranee" that not all coup makers are in military uniforms and casts a fundamentalist, fanatical and sycophantic politically partisan posture of himself,  saying that when he rules in favour of the majority, that is applauded  but when he rules in favour of the minority, he is denounced as a nation-wrecker.

If we were to take account of failures of Parliament to meet the aspirations of the people, many things would be cited as having gone wrong. How many years did it take Parliament to pass the Right to Information, Affirmative Action and the Broadcasting bills? So, if there are institutional weaknesses, such as long delays in the administration of justice, the Speaker must be the last person to attribute politically partisan motive.

What has the LGBTQI or the Proper  Family Law got to do with the partisan causes of a political party? In a situation where lawyers for parties make it impossible for the smooth adjudication of cases, by the institution of applications, which sometimes lack merit, how do we blame the Judiciary and suggest that they are deliberately acting to undermine the powers of Parliament?

By all means Ghanaians need to support a strong and powerful Parliament, but that must be a Parliament which submits its processes to the rule of law and due process, but not a Parliament which considers itself as the law and is ready to act with impunity and disregard of legal decisions.

Does the Speaker respect the ruling of the Supreme Court or thinks political decisions override legal positions? And why does Speaker Bagbin bemoan the incidence of MPs invoking their right to seek justice in the courts as traitors and moles, when the Speaker acts as if he is a monarch.

When the Speakers evades lawfully processes of service of summons and the Minority in Parliament clutches to a straw as a relief to evade drowning, the only sensible and intelligent, peaceful and orderly alternative is to go to court to expand the frontiers of the law and democracy.

It also needs to be emphasised that democracy is not just about numbers, but more important about rules and regulations. It is only when the rules and regulations fail to resolve a matter in an orderly, peaceful and logical manner, that numbers become an alternative.

What is before us is simply whether the Speaker of Parliament who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution is ready to respect the ruling of the Supreme Court that has  final authority in judicial decision-making under the Constitution. Lawyers love to say “you cannot aprobate and reprobate.”

The Speaker cannot undermine the Constitution and seek to claim authority under the Constitution.