Member of Parliament for Bawku Central, Mahama Ayariga, has raised concerns over the level of judicial involvement in matters he deems too political, following the Supreme Court’s decision to issue a stay of execution on Speaker Alban Bagbin’s ruling that declared four parliamentary seats vacant.

Speaking on JoyNews’ The Probe on Sunday, October 20, Mr Ayariga emphasised the need for judges with extensive legal knowledge at the Supreme Court, pointing to international precedents where courts have refrained from getting entangled in politically charged disputes.

“That is why you should have knowledgeable people as judges at the Supreme Court. We should have judges who know their law,” he said, referencing the 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case Baker v. Carr.

He noted that in this landmark case, the U.S. court ruled that there are certain matters inherently political, which are best left to the legislature and executive branches to resolve without judicial interference.

Mr Ayariga argued that the Ghanaian Supreme Court should have followed a similar approach.

"If they were knowledgeable, they would have known that the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Baker and Carr in 1968, said that ‘there are certain matters that are by their nature political within the domain of the legislature and the executive.’"

The ruling Mr Ayariga referred to arose from Speaker Bagbin’s decision to declare four seats vacant after the affected MPs either opted to contest the 2024 elections as independent candidates or switched party allegiances.

This sparked a legal battle, culminating in the Supreme Court's intervention, which stayed Mr Bagbin's ruling.

Mr Ayariga expressed frustration over the court’s swift decision to intervene without granting a hearing to the respondents; “...the Supreme Court hurriedly meets and issues a stay of execution to the Speaker without even hearing the other side.”

He warned that such judicial involvement could lead to clashes between the legislature, executive, and judiciary.

"Else there would be these kinds of clashes where the legislature would say one thing and the Supreme Court would say another. Where the Executive would say one thing and the Supreme Court would say another."

There's divided opinion over Speaker Bagbin's declaration as well as the intervention by the Supreme Court.

One of the critics, a private legal practitioner, Kwame Akuffo, is of the view that the Supreme Court erred.

Read Also: Legal practitioner Kwame Akuffo punches Supreme Court over vacant seats ruling; says it lacks principle