Recent attempts by Members of Parliament (MPs) in Ghana to take Speaker Alban Bagbin to court are raising significant concerns about the potential long-term consequences for the country's political landscape, especially as the 2024 elections approach.

This marks the second time in just a few weeks that an MP has taken legal action against the Speaker. Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, the Member of Parliament for South Dayi, has filed a writ in the Accra High Court, requesting the Speaker confirm the status of four vacant seats in the legislature. This development follows an earlier legal challenge brought before the Supreme Court by MPs seeking judicial intervention on parliamentary matters.

These legal actions could set a troubling precedent for Ghana's democracy, especially when viewed in the context of parliamentary sovereignty and the functioning of the legislature. If MPs continue to seek judicial resolution for internal parliamentary issues, future MPs, particularly those in opposition, may find themselves facing the same judicial scrutiny when they disagree with decisions made by the Speaker or the majority party.

A precedent that could backfire

One of the fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy is the autonomy of the legislature. In Ghana, as in many other parliamentary systems, conflicts within Parliament are typically resolved internally.

When disputes arise, the Speaker is usually given the responsibility to mediate, and in extreme cases, MPs can remove the Speaker via a vote of no confidence within the Parliament itself. This internal mechanism ensures that the balance of power remains within the legislative body, rather than allowing external institutions—such as the judiciary—to overstep their bounds.

If MPs continue to turn to the courts to resolve disagreements with the Speaker, they may inadvertently create a dangerous precedent for future legislative processes. Should opposition MPs gain control of Parliament in the future, they may be more likely to take similar legal actions against the Speaker, potentially leading to a cycle of legal challenges that destabilizes Parliament's ability to function effectively.

Moreover, the perception that MPs are using the judiciary to settle political differences could lead to public disillusionment.

If the public believes that the executive and judiciary are conspiring to undermine the legislative branch, it could damage trust in the democratic process. This could influence how voters approach the 2024 elections, with potential consequences for both the presidential race and parliamentary elections.

Comparing International Practices: The Case of the UK and the US.

While the Ghanaian scenario is unique, it is worth examining how similar challenges have been handled in other parliamentary systems, such as the United Kingdom and the United States.

In the UK, the Speaker of the House of Commons is expected to remain impartial and accountable to Parliament. While MPs may call for the Speaker's resignation or challenge their actions through a vote of no confidence, it is rare for MPs to resort to the courts.

A notable example occurred in 2009 when Speaker Michael Martin faced significant political pressure over the parliamentary expenses scandal. Despite the scandal, he resigned voluntarily rather than face legal proceedings or be removed through judicial intervention.

Similarly, in the United States, the Speaker of the House of Representatives faces political challenges, especially in a polarized environment, but has never been sued by members of Congress for actions taken in office. While legislative procedures and decisions can be contested within the framework of Congress itself—through motions to vacate the chair or other procedural measures—judicial involvement is generally avoided.

For example, during the contentious impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton (1998-1999), or the leadership struggles with Speaker John Boehner in 2015, political disagreements were handled through legislative and political means rather than through the courts.

The Risk of Unintended Consequences.

The current legal challenges faced by Speaker Bagbin are not just about the specific disputes at hand, but about the broader implications for parliamentary democracy in Ghana. MPs may be inadvertently creating a precedent that could be exploited in the future, especially in times of political upheaval.

What may seem like a justified response to a specific issue today could be turned against them in the future, especially if opposition parties are in a stronger position.

As Ghana approaches the 2024 elections, the political environment is likely to become even more polarized. In such a climate, any actions that undermine the authority of the Speaker, or the integrity of the parliamentary process, could have far-reaching consequences. Voters may interpret the ongoing legal battles as a sign of dysfunction within the legislature, leading to a loss of confidence in the political system as a whole.

Conclusion: A Call for Caution

While MPs have the right to seek legal remedies, it is essential that they carefully consider the broader implications of their actions. Resorting to the courts to resolve internal parliamentary conflicts could set a dangerous precedent, one that may come back to haunt them in the future—especially if they find themselves in opposition.

In the coming months, all parties involved must navigate these issues with caution, patience, and an understanding of the potential consequences. Parliamentary disputes are best resolved through parliamentary means, and the Ghanaian public will undoubtedly expect MPs to act with a sense of responsibility and foresight as they approach the 2024 elections. After all, the health of a democracy depends not only on the actions of its leaders, but also on the precedents they set for the future.

Written by Amanda Akuokor Clinton Esq.

MSc in African Politics