A dangerous precedent threatens democracy in Ghana

Ghanaian Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin

Ghana is on the brink of a constitutional abyss, balancing precariously between the rule of law and raw political maneuvering. In its latest blow to parliamentary democracy, Ghana’s Supreme Court, with its now growing ranks of government-affiliated judges, has issued a stay of execution following a ruling by the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin.

His decision declared the seats of four Members of Parliament vacant under the unequivocal Article 97(1)(g) of the 1992 Constitution. It is a decision based on law, rooted in precedent and reinforced by the fundamental democratic principle that MPs cannot arrogantly switch allegiances, nor contest elections as independents, without losing their right to represent their constituencies.

Yet here we are. The New Patriotic Party (NPP), which only four years ago celebrated the invocation of this same constitutional provision when one of its own, Andrew Amoako Asiamah, dared to emerge as an independent party, is now shamelessly rushing to court to protect her erring party. MPs same fate. What we see is not just hypocrisy; it is an affront to democratic integrity, a naked exercise in political self-preservation.

And worse, it is aided by a judiciary that, under the tenure of President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, has seen an alarming tendency towards party political loyalty. The critical voices of democracy, the guardians of constitutional integrity, must speak out – and speak loudly.

The Supreme Court’s stay of execution is not just a legal anomaly; it is a fundamental violation of the separation of powers, a doctrine that is the foundation of any functioning democracy. Article 122 of the Ghanaian Constitution stipulates that each branch of government – ​​the executive, the legislature and the judiciary – must operate within prescribed limits.

The Speaker of Parliament, who has the power to declare seats vacant in accordance with constitutional provisions, is a master of parliamentary procedure. This is not subject to legal interpretation or negotiation. The court’s interference is not just an overreach; it is an erosion of the legislative independence that has defined modern democratic government since the time of Montesquieu.

Moreover, this judicial interference sets a dangerous precedent not only for Ghana, but for democracies around the world. By blocking the Speaker’s lawful ruling, the Supreme Court is undermining the constitutional framework that upholds the integrity of parliamentary representation. Article 97(1)(g) is not ambiguous; it’s crystal clear. When a Member of Parliament ceases to be a member of the party that elected him, his seat must be vacated. To allow otherwise is to invite chaos into the corridors of power – allowing MPs to abandon their parties, betray the mandate of their constituents, and still retain the privileges of their office.

Thus, the Supreme Court’s decision is not only legally flawed; it is a dangerous disruption of democratic norms. The consequences are terrible. If MPs are allowed to defy their party loyalty without repercussions, what happens to the responsibility that is the cornerstone of representative democracy? The people do not elect parliamentarians as individuals, but as representatives of parties, ideologies and manifestos. Severing this connection means severing the lifeblood of democratic government.

The actions of the NPP show that a party is desperately clinging to a parliamentary majority, a majority that it has already lost due to Chairman Bagbin’s statement. Having failed to maintain control through legitimate political means, the NPP is now seeking refuge in the courts, weaponizing the judiciary as a tool for political survival. But this is a dangerous game that risks disintegrating the very institutions that hold the nation together. A politicized judiciary is not just a threat to individual rulings; it is a threat to the essence of the rule of law.

We need to look at international examples to understand the gravity of the situation. In Poland, Hungary and other young democracies, we have seen the disastrous consequences of filling courts with loyalists, undermining judicial independence and eroding the checks and balances that keep the executive in check. Ghana should not follow this path. If the judiciary becomes nothing more than a rubber stamp for today’s government, the foundations of democracy will crumble and make way for authoritarianism cloaked in a veneer of legality.

The international community should also take note. Ghana has long been a beacon of democratic stability in a region often plagued by political turbulence. But this status is fragile. The actions of the NPP and the Supreme Court signal a troubling shift toward the kind of democratic backsliding that has endangered other countries. The European Union, the African Union and the United Nations have all established guidelines and frameworks to ensure judicial independence and democratic integrity. It is time for these institutions to take a closer look at what is happening in Ghana before it is too late.

There is no way around it: the Supreme Court has violated the spirit and letter of the Ghanaian Constitution. The nuclear power plant has betrayed its own past principles and clung to power through legal manipulation instead of the will of the people. And the dangers ahead are great. If this ruling is upheld and the judiciary continues to serve the interests of the ruling party, Ghana’s democracy will be on the brink of collapse. Today there are four MPs; tomorrow it could be the dissolution of Parliament itself.

What is at stake here is not just the fate of four parliamentarians, but the future of Ghana’s democracy. The court’s ruling must be opposed as it is nothing less than an attack on the integrity of the country’s democratic institutions. The people of Ghana must seize the opportunity, as they have done so many times before, to defend the principles that have guided this country through the most difficult of times. Because if they don’t, they will wake up one day to find that the democracy they cherish has been slowly, systematically, piece by piece, dismantled by those who claim to uphold it.