In a recent legal challenge, the Supreme Court has been criticized for its verdict on a ruling made by Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin. The court’s decision has been described as “constitutional lawlessness” by legal experts and political figures who argue that the judiciary is overstepping its boundaries.

The controversy stems from a dispute over the interpretation of the Speaker’s powers in parliamentary proceedings. Critics of the Supreme Court's verdict claim that the ruling undermines the authority of the Speaker and breaches the separation of powers outlined in Ghana’s Constitution.

Those who oppose the court’s decision argue that it sets a dangerous precedent for judicial interference in parliamentary matters, which could disrupt the balance of power between the legislative and judicial branches of government. The ongoing debate has fueled concerns about the limits of judicial authority in Ghana’s political landscape.

As legal and political experts continue to weigh in, the ruling has sparked wider discussions about constitutional interpretation and the role of the judiciary in safeguarding or infringing on democratic processes in the country.