Because the speaker's decision would have resulted in irreversible harm, we granted the stay of execution—Supreme Court

After Speaker Alban Bagbin decided to declare four House seats empty, the Supreme Court ruled that it had the authority to give a stay of execution. As a result, Speaker of the House of Representatives Alban Bagbin's motion to reverse the Court's decision to postpone his declaration of four parliamentary seats as empty was denied.

The court argued that its previous order to delay the Speaker's decision was appropriate and did not violate the natural justice criterion. Among other arguments made in court, the Speaker's legal team contended that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction in this matter.

The Supreme Court panel, led by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, argued that its previous decision was reasonable and that the Speaker's appeal lacked validity after hearing arguments from all sides, including the Attorney General and the Minister for Justice. The October 18, 2024, verdict explicitly stated how these extraordinary circumstances were taken into account. Therefore, it is unexpected that the petitioner would argue that the Supreme Court's discretion was violated by Article 296.

The Chief Justice further characterized the parliamentary position as a constitutional crisis, wherein the constituents of the impacted Members of Parliament would be excluded from representation.

She further stated that the Speaker's decision would require the impacted MPs to immediately leave their seats, forfeit all advantages, emoluments, and privileges that MPs were supposed to receive as lawmakers, and immediately remove them from their positions if they were ministers or deputies.

"Instead of issuing a 10-day interim order on Article 97(1)(g) as interpreted by the Speaker, this court must address this dispute immediately due to the irreversible harm that could be caused to the constituencies—which comprise hundreds of thousands of Ghanaians—who would be left without MPs and without the possibility of by-elections, as well as the irreversible impact on MPs potentially losing their seats just weeks before the December 7 election.

By permitting the constitutional action to proceed through a statement of case, requiring parties to submit their claims within seven days, and acting swiftly to resolve the issues raised, the CJ further stated that it is imperative that the Supreme Court expedite proceedings, bridging the customary 14-day period.

The court decided that the dispute might have been settled in the ten days the petitioner asked if all parties had followed these instructions within the recommended time frame.