Ghana Parliament Erupts Over Speaker’s Suspension of MPs, Legal Authority Questioned

Ghana’s Parliament is embroiled in a fiery constitutional showdown after Speaker Alban Bagbin suspended four lawmakers, sparking accusations of overreach and demands for clarity on the limits of his powers.

The move has drawn sharp criticism from former Majority Leader Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu, who argues the Speaker acted beyond legal bounds, igniting a debate over parliamentary accountability and due process.

Speaking on JoyNews’ Newsfile, Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu, a seasoned legislator, acknowledged the Speaker’s reference to Order 342 of Parliament’s Standing Orders but challenged its interpretation. “The Speaker is right to have availed himself of Order 342,” he said, “but neither the Standing Orders nor the Constitution grants him unilateral authority to suspend MPs.” He stressed that while the Speaker can order an MP’s removal from proceedings, suspension—a more severe penalty—requires due process not evidently followed in this case.

The controversy centers on whether Bagbin’s actions align with Ghana’s legal framework. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu argued that parliamentary discipline must adhere to established protocols, warning that bypassing these risks eroding institutional integrity. “The Speaker has not only jumped the gun but has gone outside the prescription of the law to impose his sanction. His own attitude and conduct are questionable,” he said, hinting at potential bias in the suspensions.

A Clash of Interpretation

At the heart of the dispute is Order 342, which outlines disciplinary measures for MPs disrupting proceedings. Critics like Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu contend it allows temporary removal, not prolonged suspension, without a broader parliamentary vote or committee review. Legal scholars are divided, with some backing the Speaker’s authority to maintain order, while others warn of a dangerous precedent. “This isn’t about defending misconduct,” said constitutional lawyer Clara Osei-Asare. “It’s about ensuring checks and balances exist even within Parliament itself.”

Political Undertones

The suspended MPs, all from the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC), allege the move is politically motivated, aimed at stifling dissent during heated debates on contentious legislation. The ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP), however, has remained notably silent, fueling speculation about backroom negotiations.

Public reaction has been equally polarized. Civil society groups warn that unchecked Speaker authority could undermine democracy, while others applaud Bagbin for “taming chaos” in a legislature often marred by rowdy sessions.

This clash transcends partisan politics, striking at the core of Ghana’s democratic principles. Parliament, as the people’s representation, must balance discipline with accountability. While the Speaker’s role in maintaining order is undisputed, the absence of clear suspension protocols risks politicizing parliamentary governance.

Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, designed to prevent authoritarian overreach, demands transparency in such matters. If the Speaker’s authority remains ambiguously defined, it could invite future abuses, weakening public trust. As Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu aptly noted, “Due process isn’t a hindrance—it’s the bedrock of justice.”

For now, the ball lies with Ghana’s courts or a parliamentary review to clarify these powers. Until then, the saga serves as a stark reminder: even in democracy’s hallowed halls, power must always answer to law.