It is evident that Alban Bagbin has deviated from his legal expertise, instead floundering in a continuous misinterpretation of the law due to his overtly partisan political actions. A man once celebrated as a legal expert now behaves, in moments, like a novice.

It is regrettable to note that Alban Bagbin has served on numerous prominent parliamentary committees that demanded a thorough understanding of the law. Notably, in the Second Parliament of the Fourth Republic, Mr. Bagbin chaired the Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional, Legal, and Parliamentary Affairs, overseeing the Commission of Human Rights and Administrative Justice, the Electoral Commission, the National Commission on Civic Education, the Office of Parliament, and the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs. Yet, despite this extensive parliamentary pedigree, his recent actions resemble those of a neophyte and an imposter.

To proceed, it is factually clear that the Supreme Court is required to provide each party involved in a case with a copy of the writ, initiating the case and ensuring the awareness of all parties.

According to Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C.I. 16) Rule 45(3), "a copy of the writ shall be served on each of the parties mentioned in the writ as directly affected, who shall be considered as the defendants, and on the Attorney General if not specifically named as a defendant."

Additionally, Rule 47 states, "the Registrar shall, as soon as practicable after the filing of the plaintiff’s statement of case, serve copies of the statement on the defendant and the Attorney General."

In this context, I find it difficult to understand the Speaker’s objection, citing that the writ was not served on him in time and referencing Article 117 as justification, while the Court itself adheres strictly to its own regulations.

His challenge undermines the reputation and competence of the Court, and the Court should exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to hold him accountable for discrediting its legal authority.

If Alban Bagbin were fully cognizant of the essentials of the law, he would not have cited a circular from Justice Cyra Pamela Korangteng on enforcing Articles 117 and 118 of the Constitution as grounds for ignoring the Court's documents served by bailiffs.

According to the Court Act, 1993 (Act 459) Section 2(3), "The Supreme Court may, while treating its own previous decisions as normally binding, depart from a previous decision when it appears right to do so; and all other courts are bound to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court on questions of law." At any time, the Supreme Court can overturn a prior decision within its discretion, as this authority is solely granted to it.

Therefore, Alban Bagbin’s attempt to remind the Court of this constitutional provision does not excuse him from compliance with the Court’s order. His actions are thus nothing more than a "futile exercise in extravagance and futility."

Moreover, once the Supreme Court has issued an order, compliance is mandatory. Article 2(3) of the 1992 Constitution states, "Any person or group of persons to whom an order or direction is addressed under clause (2) of this article by the Supreme Court, shall duly obey and carry out the terms of the order or direction."

Alban Bagbin's refusal to abide by this directive under flimsy pretexts demonstrates blatant insubordination, reflecting an attitude that he is somehow beyond legal accountability.

The Supreme Court must invoke the full force of the law upon him to affirm that Ghana is not a land of anarchy, and that the judiciary can be firm and impartial toward all, regardless of one’s esteemed position. Let’s not close the barn door after the horse has bolted!