The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, has deferred ruling on Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin’s private member motion, inviting him to overturn First Deputy Speaker Bernard Ahiafor’s earlier ruling on March 5, 2025.

The motion is in relation to alleged mass dismissals of appointees by the current administration after taking over the reins of government following NDC's victory at the polls in the December 2024 elections.

Bernard Ahiafor’s ruling blocked a parliamentary probe into the mass dismissals until a substantive matter (Henry Nana Boakye v. Attorney-General) pending in court is determined.

However, Mr Afenyo-Markin moved a motion to request the Speaker to quash the decision by Mr Ahiafor.

In his written submission, the Effutu MP argued that the decision which blocked Private Members’ Motion No. 16 on sub judice grounds was legally flawed.

READ ALSO: Afenyo-Markin challenges Ahiafor’s sub judice ruling, calls it ‘dangerous precedent’

Afenyo-Markin contends the ruling misapplied the sub judice rule, effectively allowing pending litigation to silence Parliament’s oversight role.

He cited the Supreme Court’s May 6, 2025, decision in Vincent Ekow Assafuah v. Attorney-General, which clarified that constitutional bodies must operate unless explicitly restrained by a court order.

The Minority Leader also referenced a 2012 ruling by then-Speaker Joyce Bamford-Addo, which upheld Parliament’s right to deliberate on public issues despite related court cases.

He warned that the March 5 decision sets a harmful precedent, enabling strategic litigation to block legislative scrutiny.

Invoking Standing Order 127, Mr Afenyo-Markin urged the Speaker to reverse the ruling, stressing that "the people deserve robust legislative oversight" of executive actions affecting citizens' welfare.

The deferment of the final verdict, announced in Parliament on Friday, June 13, aims to allow for a thorough review of complex legal precedents, particularly conflicting Supreme Court interpretations regarding parliamentary actions.

The sensitive nature of the motion, touching on issues of employment security and government accountability, has drawn significant attention.

Speaker Bagbin explained his decision to defer by referencing his own past experiences and recent judicial pronouncements.

He recalled a previous instance where, as Speaker, the Supreme Court had held that once his attention was drawn to a pending writ, he "should have proceeded the next day... to have read the statement... concerning vacancy of the seats," implying such action would have effectively served as an injunction on the parliamentary process.

"I differed from it," Speaker Bagbin stated, indicating his past disagreement with that particular interpretation of parliamentary procedure in relation to court actions.

However, he then acknowledged a more recent Supreme Court ruling that "took a different view", which he noted has been "quoted copiously" in the current matter before the House.

The Speaker emphasised the necessity of a careful approach to reconcile these differing legal positions.

"It's important for us to take time to go through this," he said, indicating a commitment to ensuring that Parliament's actions are consistent with prevailing legal interpretations and constitutional principles.

The deferral means that the question of whether Parliament will be allowed to fully delve into the alleged mass dismissals remains open.

Speaker Bagbin's full ruling on the matter is now expected at a later date, which will determine the House's scope of inquiry into the contentious issue.