The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, has announced that Parliament will reconvene on Monday, December 16, 2024.
He disclosed that the venue for the 7th meeting of the 4th session of the 8th Parliament will be announced to Members of Parliament later.
The announcement was contained in a notice issued on December 2, signed by the Speaker.
“Pursuant to order 58 of the standing orders of the Parliament of Ghana, I Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, Speaker of Parliament, hereby give notice that the seventh meeting of the fourth session of the eighth parliament of the Fourth Republic shall commence on Monday, the 16th day of December 2024 at ten o’clock in the forenoon at a place to be appointed by the speaker in due course,” the notice stated.
This announcement indicates that Parliament will resume after the December 7 general elections, during which new Members of Parliament for the Majority and Minority sides will be elected.
The decision follows Speaker Bagbin’s earlier refusal of a request by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin to recall Parliament. The recall was proposed for November 28 and 29 to address urgent issues. Speaker Bagbin insisted that parliamentary activities would remain suspended until after the general elections.
The suspension occurred after the Speaker adjourned proceedings, citing the absence of a prepared agenda from the Business Committee as the reason for the break.
Additionally, on November 12, the Supreme Court overturned Speaker Bagbin’s declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacant. The Court ruled in favor of a challenge brought by Afenyo-Markin.
In its judgment, released on November 14, the five justices supporting the Majority Leader clarified that a parliamentary seat can only be declared vacant if a lawmaker switches political parties while retaining their seat in parliament.
The ruling stated that the Speaker’s decision could not take effect during the current parliamentary term. However, two dissenting justices argued that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to handle the case, reflecting differing views on the Court’s authority over such matters.
Read the statement below:
