The recent decision by the Supreme Court of Ghana to quash Parliament's declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacated and to subsequently declare the National Democratic Congress (NDC) the majority party has sent shockwaves across the nation. This ruling, far from bringing clarity to the legislative arm of government, threatens the democratic principles that Ghana has upheld for decades. As political tension rises, many Ghanaians are left questioning the impartiality of the judiciary and the broader consequences of such a ruling on the democratic fabric of the country.

Firstly, the Supreme Court’s decision undermines the principle of parliamentary autonomy. The power to determine the legitimacy of its own members has traditionally been a right reserved for Parliament, ensuring that elected representatives can act in accordance with the will of their constituents. By overruling Parliament’s decision to declare four seats vacant, the judiciary has inserted itself into what many view as a purely legislative matter. This unprecedented interference sets a dangerous precedent, where the balance of power between the judiciary and the legislature is tilted, raising concerns about the separation of powers that is vital to Ghana’s democratic governance.

The decision is also seen as an affront to the rule of law, as Parliament had acted within its constitutional rights when it made the declaration of vacancy. Parliamentary decisions, especially those related to the electoral representation of citizens, should be sacrosanct unless there is clear evidence of constitutional violations. In this case, no such violations were conclusively proven, yet the highest court in the land saw fit to quash Parliament’s action, undermining the role of an institution that represents the people’s mandate.
More troubling is the fact that the decision tilts the balance of power in Parliament, declaring the NDC as the majority party. In a political climate that is already fraught with tension, this move risks destabilizing the fragile equilibrium that has characterized the Fourth Republic.

Ghanaians have prided themselves on the peaceful alternation of power between major political partiess, and this ruling risks sowing seeds of division, further polarizing an already divided political landscape.
While the judiciary is supposed to act as a neutral arbiter, this ruling gives credence to those who claim that the court may be acting in favor of certain political interests. The erosion of public confidence in the judiciary seriously threatens the country’s democratic institutions. Democracy thrives on trust, and when citizens begin to lose faith in one of the arms of government, the entire system is at risk of collapsing.
Moreover, the ruling threatens to disenfranchise voters in the constituencies affected. The Supreme Court’s ruling ignores the voters’ political preferences in these constituencies by declaring the seats vacant and subsequently awarding majority status to the NDC. This action risks alienating these voters, making them feel marginalized in the political process, which could lead to long-term political apathy and distrust.


In conclusion, while the judiciary must interpret the constitution, its actions should not undermine the very principles that hold Ghana’s democracy together. The decision to quash Parliament’s ruling and declare a new majority in Parliament threatens the autonomy of the legislature, the rule of law, and the voice of the electorate. Ghanaians from all political spectrums must rally to protect the core democratic values that have kept the nation stable for decades. The country’s democracy is far too precious to be compromised by judicial overreach.