Should the Speaker of Ghana’s Parliament, Who is Not Directly Elected, Have the Power to Suspend Parliament Indefinitely?
In any democratic system, the exercise of power, particularly by individuals or institutions not directly elected by the people, must be carefully circumscribed to protect the principles of accountability, representation, and the rule of law.
In Ghana’s political landscape, the Speaker of Parliament plays a crucial role as the presiding officer over parliamentary debates and activities. However, the question whether the Speaker, who is not directly elected, should have the power to suspend Parliament indefinitely raises profound constitutional, legal, and moral concerns.
To understand the implications of this power, it is essential to draw upon the experiences of the Common Law world, where parliamentary systems have long grappled with balancing authority and democratic accountability.
The Role of the Speaker in Parliamentary Systems
In parliamentary democracies derived from the Westminster tradition, such as Ghana, the Speaker holds a position of significant influence. Tasked with maintaining order during parliamentary debates, interpreting rules of procedure, and ensuring that the rights of both the majority and the minority are respected, the Speaker’s office is designed to act as an impartial arbiter of the legislative process.
However, unlike Members of Parliament (MPs) who are directly elected by the people to represent constituencies, the Speaker of Ghana’s Parliament is elected by MPs. Although this indirect election imbues the office with a measure of democratic legitimacy, it also creates a potential tension between the Speaker’s authority and the broader principle of direct democratic representation. This tension becomes particularly evident when considering the possibility of the Speaker suspending Parliament indefinitely.
Suspension of Parliament in the Common Law Tradition
In the Common Law world, the suspension or prorogation of Parliament is not without precedent, but it is typically viewed with caution due to its potential to undermine democratic governance. The most prominent modern example comes from the United Kingdom, where the prorogation of Parliament by Prime Minister Boris Johnson in 2019 was met with intense legal and political scrutiny. In that case, the UK Supreme Court ruled that Johnson’s decision to prorogue Parliament for five weeks was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. This landmark decision highlighted the importance of ensuring that any suspension of Parliament must not be used to undermine the role of the legislature as a check on executive power.
Similarly, in Canada, prorogation has been used on multiple occasions to suspend parliamentary activity, sometimes leading to public outcry and accusations of executive overreach. In 2008, for instance, Prime Minister Stephen Harper requested that the Governor General prorogue Parliament to avoid a confidence vote that could have toppled his government. Although this prorogation was legally permissible, it raised questions about whether such powers were being used to circumvent parliamentary accountability.
These examples illustrate a key principle, that while the suspension of Parliament may be legally permissible under certain circumstances, it must always be exercised with caution and for legitimate purposes. Importantly, such powers must be temporary and should never be used to indefinitely block the functioning of the legislature.
The Democratic Deficit: The Issue of Indefinite Suspension by a Non-Elected Speaker
Granting the Speaker of Ghana’s Parliament the power to suspend Parliament indefinitely would present several democratic and constitutional challenges, especially given the Speaker’s non-elected status. The power to indefinitely suspend Parliament would effectively allow the Speaker to override the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives. In any democracy, the legislative body is the primary forum for debating and passing laws, holding the executive accountable, and representing the interests of citizens. Suspending Parliament indefinitely would undermine these essential functions.
The Speaker, although a respected figure within the parliamentary system, does not have a direct mandate from the people. Unlike MPs, who are elected by constituents to represent their interests, the Speaker is selected by MPs and may not represent any specific electoral constituency. This creates a democratic deficit when it comes to exercising certain powers. If the Speaker were given the power to suspend Parliament indefinitely, it would amount to an unelected official wielding disproportionate control over the legislative process, undermining the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.
In contrast, within the Common Law tradition, even heads of state or government, who are either elected or serve in a constitutional role—rarely exercise the power to suspend Parliament indefinitely. Where such powers exist, they are often subject to legal or constitutional checks, including judicial review, time limits, and requirements for parliamentary approval.
Checks and Balances: Limiting the Speaker’s Power
To preserve the integrity of Ghana’s democracy, any power to suspend Parliament, especially indefinitely, must be accompanied by clear checks and balances. This can be drawn from both the Common Law tradition and Ghana’s own constitutional framework.
First, any suspension of Parliament should be temporary and should require a reasonable justification, such as a national emergency or a crisis that makes it impossible for Parliament to sit. Even in such cases, the suspension should be for a limited period, and Parliament should be reconvened as soon as practicable. Additionally, the power to suspend Parliament should not rest solely in the hands of the Speaker. Instead, it should require consultation with and approval from a broader body, such as a supermajority of MPs or the executive, ensuring that the decision reflects a consensus rather than the will of a single individual.
Second, judicial oversight must be an essential component of any decision to suspend Parliament. As seen in the UK Supreme Court’s ruling on the prorogation case, courts can play a vital role in reviewing whether a suspension is lawful and justified. In Ghana, the judiciary could similarly act as a safeguard to prevent the abuse of suspension powers, ensuring that the Speaker or any other authority does not unilaterally subvert the legislative process.
Conclusion
In a democracy, no single individual, especially one who is not directly elected, should have the power to indefinitely suspend Parliament. The experience of the Common Law world shows that the suspension of Parliament, while sometimes necessary, must be used sparingly, for legitimate purposes, and with clear limits. Ghana’s democracy is founded on the principles of accountability, representation, and the rule of law. To safeguard these principles, the Speaker’s powers must be carefully constrained, ensuring that Parliament remains the primary institution for representing the will of the people.
The answer to whether the Speaker of Ghana’s Parliament should have the power to suspend Parliament indefinitely must therefore be a resounding no. Instead, the focus should be on strengthening the institutions of democracy, ensuring that power is exercised transparently, and that the voices of the people, through their elected representatives, remain central to the governance of the nation.@Kasise
About Author
