The Speaker of the Assembly, Alban Bagbin, announced that the Assembly will resume work on Monday, December 16, 2024.
However, he said that the venue of the 7th sitting of the fourth session of the 8th Parliament will be communicated to the parliamentarians in due course.
This announcement was made in a notice published on December 2 and signed by the Speaker.
“In accordance with Rule 58 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Ghana, I, Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, Speaker of Parliament, hereby declare that the seventh sitting of the fourth session of the eighth parliament of the Fourth Republic shall commence on Monday, 16th December, 2024, at ten o’clock in the morning at a place to be designated by the President in due course.”
The move means that Parliament will resume its work after the 2024 general elections, during which new parliamentarians will be elected by the majority and minority.
The decision to reconvene Parliament comes after Speaker Bagbin rejected a request by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin to reconvene Parliament on 28th and 29th November to deal with urgent matters.
Speaker Bagbin has said that parliamentary business will remain suspended until the December 7 general elections.
The adjournment followed a suspension of proceedings by Speaker Bagbin, who cited the lack of an agenda prepared by the Business Committee as the reason for the adjournment.
On Tuesday, November 12, the Supreme Court set aside Speaker Bagbin’s decision to declare four parliamentary seats vacant, ruling in favour of a challenge filed by Afenyo-Markin.
In their detailed ruling on Thursday, November 14, the five judges who sided with the majority leader clarified that a parliamentary seat can only be declared vacant if a lawmaker changes political party while maintaining his or her position in Parliament.
The verdict also stated that the Speaker’s decision could not take effect during the current legislature.
Meanwhile, two opposing judges debated that the Supreme Court has no authority to decide the case, stressing an inconsistency in the interpretation of the Court’s authority in such matters.
