Parliament will meet again on Monday, December 16, 2024, according to Speaker of the House Alban Bagbin.
He did, however, add that members of Parliament will be informed in due time of the location of the seventh meeting of the fourth session of the eighth parliament.
A notice bearing the Speaker’s signature was published on December 2nd to make this statement.
“Pursuant to order 58 of the standing orders of the Parliament of Ghana, I Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, Speaker of Parliament, hereby give notice that the seventh meeting of the fourth session of the eighth parliament of the Fourth Republic shall commence on Monday, the 16th day of December 2024 at ten o’clock in the forenoon at a place to be appointed by the speaker in due course.”
According to this ruling, Parliament will reconvene following the general elections in 2024, when new MPs will be chosen for both the Majority and Minority parties.
The decision to reconvene follows Speaker Bagbin’s refusal to grant Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin’s request to reconvene Parliament on November 28 and 29 in order to discuss urgent issues. Speaker Bagbin insisted that parliamentary operations will not resume until after the general elections on December 7.
The adjournment came after Speaker Bagbin suspended the meeting, stating that the absence of a prepared agenda from the Business Committee was the cause of the pause.
Speaker Bagbin’s decision to declare four parliamentary seats vacant was reversed by the Supreme Court on Tuesday, November 12, in favor of a lawsuit made by Afenyo Markin.
In its detailed judgment released on Thursday, November 14, the five justices who sided with the Majority Leader clarified that a parliamentary seat can only be declared vacant if a lawmaker switches political parties while retaining their position in Parliament.
The ruling further stated that the Speaker’s decision could not take effect within the current parliamentary term.
However, two dissenting justices argued that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the case, highlighting a divide in the interpretation of the Court’s authority on such matters.
