The Supreme Court has unequivocally stated that its orders, judgments, and timelines are mandatory and must be adhered to, including by the President and Vice President.

According to the court, failure to comply with its directives constitutes a serious offense.

On October 30, 2024, the court dismissed an application from Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin, who sought to overturn its previous stay of execution regarding the declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacant.

This action followed a lawsuit filed by Effutu MP Alexander Afenyo-Markin, challenging the Speaker’s declaration.

The legal representatives for the Speaker argued that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction over the matter, among other points raised during the proceedings.

Nevertheless, the court refuted this claim, standing by its earlier ruling and labeling the Speaker’s appeal as lacking merit.

After hearing arguments from all relevant parties, including the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, who chaired the panel, reiterated that disobeying the court's orders is tantamount to a high crime.

The panel emphasized that the Speaker's application reflected a “misinformation and misapprehension of the law.”

The court also clarified that the Speaker's assertion about the court's lack of jurisdiction was misguided, stating that the issue necessitated constitutional interpretation.

“This exceptional circumstance arising from the outcome of the ruling weighed on the mind of the Supreme Court to grant an order directing a stay of execution of the ruling of the Speaker on 17th October 2024.”

“It is therefore disingenuous and wrong, including being an act of disinformation, for the argument to be presented that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court could never be evoked to determine a constitutional interpretation because of the High Court’s jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes on elections and vacation of seats of Members of Parliament under Article 99.

“Our clear view is that Article 99 gives the jurisdiction to hear cases involving questions on the validity of election or vacation of seats of a Member of Parliament and the Speaker. It does not in any way take away the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to interpret and enforce any provision of the Constitution, including Article 99 itself,” the Chief Justice said.

“We are satisfied that administrative procedures cannot override the potency of legality, and every procedure used by the Supreme Court to serve the processes of the Speaker of Parliament was actually in conformity with law and the circulars issued by the Chief Justices in 2021 and 2024.”

Furthermore, the Supreme Court confirmed its decision to grant a stay of execution on the Speaker’s declaration of four vacant seats, explaining that no by-elections could lawfully take place to fill these seats between October 17, 2024, and January 7, 2025.

Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo indicated that this critical timeframe played a significant role in the court's ruling on the stay of execution.

“The four constituencies in the Western Region, Ashanti Region, Central Region, and Eastern Region of Parliament are made up of hundreds of thousands of Ghanaians who had been cued to elect these members of parliament to represent their interests in Parliament as their voices.

“By declaring that their duly elected representatives in Parliament had vacated their seats for acts that were interpreted within the light of Article 97 (1)(g) by the Speaker, the Speaker was actually enforcing this interpretation of Article 97 (1)(g) against those hundreds of thousands of Ghanaians and not just the four people that sit in Parliament.

“He was also doing so at a time that, from the official records of Parliament presented to the Supreme Court, the Speaker knew that a contrary interpretation was being placed on the same constitutional provision and that the Supreme Court jurisdiction had been invoked to provide the correct interpretation,” she said.