Unintended consequences for the 2024 election?

Alban Bagbin, President of the Parliament

Recent attempts by Ghanaian MPs to bring President Alban Bagbin to court raises significant concerns about the potential long-term consequences for the country’s political landscape, especially as the 2024 elections approach.

This is the second time in just a few weeks that an MP has taken legal action against the President. Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, the Member of Parliament for South Dayi, has filed a writ at the High Court in Accra, asking the Speaker to confirm the status of four vacant seats in the legislature. This development follows an earlier legal challenge to the Supreme Court and High Court by MPs seeking judicial intervention in 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 parliamentarians continue to seek judicial solutions for internal parliamentary problems, future parliamentarians, especially opposition ones, may face the same judicial review when they disagree with decisions made by the Speaker or the majority party.

A precedent that could be reversed

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 usually resolved internally. When disputes arise, the President is usually given the responsibility to mediate, and in extreme cases, MPs can remove him through a vote of no confidence in 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 lawmakers continue to turn to the courts to resolve disagreements with the President, they may inadvertently set a dangerous precedent for future legislative processes. If opposition MPs gain control of Parliament in the future, they are more likely to take similar legal action against the Speaker, potentially leading to a cycle of legal challenges that destabilize Parliament’s ability to function effectively.

In addition, the perception that lawmakers are using the court system 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 confidence in the democratic process. This could influence how voters approach the 2024 election, with potential consequences for both the presidential and parliamentary races.

Comparing international practices: the case of the UK and the US

Although 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 answerable to Parliament. Although MPs can demand the President’s resignation or challenge his actions through a vote of no confidence, it is rare for MPs to go to court. 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 by 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 proceedings and decisions can be challenged within Congress itself—through motions to vacate the seat or through other procedural measures—judicial involvement is generally avoided. For example, during the contentious impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton (1998-1999) or the leadership battles 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 facing President Bagbin relate not only to the specific disputes at hand, but also to the wider implications for Ghana’s parliamentary democracy. Parliamentarians may inadvertently set a precedent that could be exploited in the future, especially in times of political turmoil. What may seem like a justified response to a particular issue today could be turned against them in the future, especially if the opposition parties find themselves 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 President or the integrity of the parliamentary process could have far-reaching consequences. Voters may interpret 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 remedies, it is essential that they carefully consider the wider implications of their actions. Turning to the courts to resolve internal parliamentary disputes could set a dangerous precedent, one that could come back to haunt them in the future – especially if they find themselves in opposition.

In the coming months, all parties involved must approach 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 no doubt 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 by the actions of its leaders, but also by the precedents they set for the future.