The First Deputy Speaker of Parliament on Wednesday ruled that a Private Members' Motion seeking to challenge a directive from the Chief of Staff was "prejudicial" due to a pending Supreme Court case.

Bernard Ahiafor's decision, according to former Kwesimintim MP, Dr. Prince Hamid Armah, is not only a misapplication of legal principles but also a dangerous precedent that could weaken Ghana's democratic framework.

The motion, filed by Alexander Afenyo-Markin, Patrick Yaw Boamah, and Vincent Ekow Assafuah, aimed to refer the Chief of Staff's directive to a parliamentary committee for inquiry.

The MPs argued that the directive violated good governance principles and affected the fundamental rights of citizens as outlined in Chapters Five and Six of the 1992 Constitution.

According to Dr. Armah, Parliament has a constitutional duty under Article 103(3) to investigate governance matters, and blocking such discussions undermines its oversight role.

One of the key justifications for the Speaker’s ruling was the sub judice rule, which prevents discussions in Parliament from prejudicing ongoing court cases.

However, Dr. Armah argues that this rule does not impose a blanket ban on parliamentary deliberations.

Quoting Standing Order 123(1) of Parliament, he explained: "A Member or a person entitled to participate in a debate shall not make reference to any matter on which judicial decision is pending in such a way as may, in the opinion of the person presiding, prejudice the interest of parties to the action."

Dr. Armah contends that the motion in question does not seek to determine the legality of the Chief of Staff’s directive, which is before the Supreme Court, but rather to assess its governance implications.

By broadly interpreting the sub judice rule, the Speaker’s ruling effectively shields executive decisions from parliamentary scrutiny, creating a precedent where judicial processes can be used to silence legislative oversight.

Another critical concern raised by Dr. Armah is the violation of the principle of separation of powers, as enshrined in Articles 93(2) and 125(3) of the 1992 Constitution.

Parliament, vested with legislative power and oversight responsibilities, operates independently from the judiciary, which is tasked with interpreting laws.

The Speaker’s decision, however, blurs this separation by suggesting that parliamentary scrutiny ceases once a matter is before the courts.

Dr. Armah warns that if this precedent holds, it could lead to a situation where any issue of public concern could be shielded from parliamentary debate simply by initiating court action. 

"If we allow this logic to stand, we could soon see court cases being used to block discussions on the national budget, key governance decisions, or even major corruption scandals. This is not just about one ruling; it is about the survival of our democratic institutions," he cautioned.

Citing past judicial rulings, Dr. Armah argues that Ghanaian legal precedent does not support the Speaker’s broad interpretation of "prejudicial."

In Justice Abdulai v. Attorney General (2022), the Supreme Court reaffirmed Parliament’s authority to regulate its own proceedings, emphasizing that the judiciary must not interfere in legislative functions except in clear cases of constitutional violation.

Similarly, in Tuffuor v. Attorney General (1980), the Supreme Court underscored the doctrine of separation of powers, asserting that each branch of government must function within its constitutional limits.

Dr. Armah believes these rulings reinforce the principle that parliamentary oversight cannot be silenced simply because a related matter is before the courts. 

"Our constitutional system is built on checks and balances. No single branch of government should be able to neutralise another. That is not democracy; that is autocracy by another name," he remarked.

"The implications of the Speaker’s ruling extend beyond this particular case. If judicial processes can be weaponised to block parliamentary scrutiny, it could fundamentally alter the balance of power between the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary," he argued.

Dr. Armah urges Ghanaians to pay close attention to this development, warning that it could set a precedent for legislative paralysis.

"Today, it is this motion. Tomorrow, it could be the national budget or a major corruption inquiry. We must not allow technicalities to erode the powers of the people's representatives," he asserted.