Afenyo-Markin Challenges Deputy Speaker’s Ruling on Sub Judice Motion
Minority Leader and Member of Parliament for Effutu, Hon. Alexander Kwamena Afenyo-Markin, has formally petitioned the Right Honourable Speaker of Parliament to vacate a ruling made by the First Deputy Speaker on March 5, 2025. The ruling in question upheld a preliminary objection that blocked a private members’ motion addressing the Chief of Staff’s directive for mass revocation of public sector appointments.
The Deputy Speaker’s decision cited the sub judice rule, arguing the motion could not proceed due to a related pending case in the Supreme Court—Henry Nana Boakye v. Attorney General (Suit No: J1/12/2025). However, Afenyo-Markin contends that the ruling was constitutionally flawed and sets a dangerous precedent.
In his written submission dated June 12, Afenyo-Markin invoked Order 127 of Parliament’s Standing Orders (2023), urging the Speaker to exercise his authority to review and overturn the decision. He argued that the ruling misapplied the sub judice rule, undermined parliamentary sovereignty, and violated the constitutional principles of free speech and legislative independence.
Citing both the 1992 Constitution and parliamentary rules, the Minority Leader emphasized that:
Parliament is constitutionally vested with legislative and deliberative powers under Article 93(2);
Members enjoy freedom of speech and debate under Article 115, and are protected from legal consequences of parliamentary acts under Article 116(1);
The sub judice rule, as outlined in Orders 103(f) and 123(1), is not absolute and is subject to the Speaker’s discretion.
He further referenced the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Vincent Ekow Assafuah v. Attorney General (Writ No: J1/18/2025), decided on May 6, 2025, arguing it provides judicial clarity that supports parliamentary deliberation on matters even if under litigation, provided it does not prejudice the proceedings.
Quoting Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice, Afenyo-Markin asserted that the sub judice rule should not be used to stifle legislative debate on matters of national importance or ministerial decision-making, especially where Parliament’s oversight role is implicated.
“The impugned ruling, though grounded in procedural caution, fundamentally misconstrues the discretionary nature of the sub judice convention and dangerously erodes Parliament’s constitutional mandate,” he submitted.
The Speaker is expected to review the petition and rule in due course.
Source: Sheila Obaapa Naana Frimpomaa, Wontumionline.com
