Speaker Must Respect EC Gazette, Courts Decide Electoral Disputes-Samson Lardy

 

 

The recent discourse surrounding the swearing-in of Members of Parliament (MPs) in Ghana has brought into focus the constitutional roles of various institutions involved in the electoral process. At the heart of this discussion is a clarification provided by prominent Ghanaian legal practitioner and broadcast journalist, Samson Lardy Anyenini. Speaking on Joy FM’s Super Morning Show on December 30, 2024, Anyenini articulated a crucial point regarding the responsibilities of the Speaker of Parliament, particularly concerning MPs-elect who have been gazetted by the Electoral Commission (EC). His analysis underscores a critical separation of powers and emphasizes the primacy of the gazetted results as the basis for the swearing-in ceremony.

 

Anyenini’s central argument rests on the principle that the Speaker’s role is primarily procedural and administrative, rather than judicial or electoral. He succinctly stated, “The Speaker’s job is not to conduct elections or determine who has been properly elected; his role is to swear in those the EC has gazetted, unless there is a court order to the contrary.” This declaration clearly defines the Speaker’s constitutional obligation: to facilitate the transition of power by recognizing and swearing in the individuals who have been officially declared winners by the EC. This duty is not discretionary and is not contingent upon the Speaker’s personal assessment of the validity of the election.

 

The need for Anyenini’s clarification arose from a recent statement by the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin. Bagbin had suggested that certain MPs-elect, who emerged from a re-collation exercise conducted by the EC, were not qualified to be sworn in by him. This position implies a potential overreach of the Speaker’s powers, blurring the lines between the legislative and electoral branches. Anyenini’s analysis acts as a necessary corrective, emphasizing the limits of the Speaker’s constitutional authority in this regard.

 

Anyenini’s detailed explanation further clarifies the Speaker’s limitations in terms of administrative correction. He articulated that “The Speaker does not have any power administratively to make any correction if he wanted to call a gazetted MP an error of a gazette.” This point is crucial: the Speaker cannot act as an adjudicator of electoral disputes. Once the EC has officially gazetted an individual as an MP-elect, the Speaker’s office is bound to accept that declaration and perform its designated function, i.e. swear in the MP. The Speaker’s office is not a platform for reviewing or rectifying perceived errors in the electoral process.

 

To further emphasize the finality of the gazetted results, Anyenini pointed to the unique authority of the judicial branch. He asserted that “It is only a court of law that can reverse a gazetted MP’s position, once the person is gazetted, you can’t do otherwise.” This statement is significant because it firmly places the power to resolve any disputes arising from electoral results with the courts, not the Parliament. The courts are the only recognized and legally empowered body to make decisions on election outcomes after the EC has gazetted results. The separation of powers is thus clearly highlighted.

 

Anyenini’s analysis underscores the critical importance of upholding the gazetted results, which constitute the official record of the elections. His position ensures that the Speaker’s actions are aligned with the constitutional framework, reinforcing the principles of democracy and the rule of law. By adhering to the gazetted list unless a court order says otherwise, the Speaker avoids engaging in potentially arbitrary or politically motivated decisions.

 

In essence, Samson Lardy Anyenini’s pronouncements on Joy FM serve as a clear and legally sound clarification of the Speaker of Parliament’s role in the swearing-in process. His analysis demonstrates that the Speaker is constitutionally bound to swear in MPs who have been gazetted by the EC, regardless of his personal opinions or perceived irregularities in the electoral process. This analysis reinforces the principle that the courts are the final arbiters in election disputes, and that the roles of the executive, legislature and judiciary, are clearly demarcated in a functional democratic system. His remarks are vital for ensuring that the transfer of power in Ghana is carried out fairly and in accordance with the established legal framework.