Afenyo-Markin Opposes Ahiafor's Decision Blocking Job Revocation Motion

Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin has lodged a formal petition with the Speaker of Parliament, urging him to overturn a ruling made by First Deputy Speaker Bernard Ahiafor on March 5, 2025. The ruling, which dismissed a motion seeking to debate the mass revocation of public sector appointments, has been described by Afenyo-Markin as constitutionally flawed and damaging to parliamentary oversight.

The Effutu Member of Parliament contends that the decision—based on the sub judice rule—effectively prevents Parliament from exercising its constitutional mandate. The original motion, Private Members’ Motion No. 16, was aimed at triggering a debate on a directive reportedly issued by the Chief of Staff ordering widespread dismissals within the public sector. However, the motion was struck out after the Deputy Speaker upheld an objection that the matter was already before the Supreme Court, in the ongoing case of Henry Nana Boakye v. Attorney General.

In a strongly worded letter to the Speaker, Afenyo-Markin argues that the Deputy Speaker’s application of the sub judice principle was legally unsound. According to him, simply citing a pending court case should not be sufficient to prevent Parliament from discussing matters of national importance—especially when there is no court order restricting parliamentary deliberation.

“The ruling creates a dangerous precedent,” he wrote. “It places Parliament’s constitutional authority at the mercy of litigation, potentially silencing the voices of the very people we are elected to represent.”

He further warned that the decision, if allowed to stand, could encourage what he called “strategic litigation” designed specifically to block Parliament from probing executive actions. Such a development, he said, would erode the accountability mechanisms fundamental to democratic governance.

To support his position, Afenyo-Markin referenced the Supreme Court’s May 6, 2025, decision in Vincent Ekow Assafuah v. Attorney General, in which the Court held that constitutional bodies must continue performing their roles unless explicitly restrained by judicial order. He emphasized that no such restraint exists in the current case and that Parliament remains free to engage in debate unless directed otherwise by the courts under exceptional circumstances.

The Minority Leader also cited historical precedent to bolster his argument. He referenced a 2012 ruling by then-Speaker of Parliament Joyce Bamford-Addo, who upheld Parliament’s right to deliberate on public matters even when related issues were before the courts. According to Afenyo-Markin, this past decision reinforced Parliament’s independence and protected its right to hold the executive accountable.

“The effect of the March 5 ruling is to place Parliament’s deliberative powers beneath the threat of legal challenge,” he stated. “This is not only constitutionally unsound—it strikes at the heart of representative democracy.”

Afenyo-Markin has called on the Speaker to invoke Standing Order 127, which permits the review and reversal of decisions made on the floor of the House. He urged the Speaker to restore the integrity of Parliament’s oversight role by vacating the Deputy Speaker’s ruling and allowing the motion on the job terminations to be revived and debated.

He concluded by stressing the broader implications of the ruling for governance and the public good: “At stake is not just a procedural matter, but Parliament’s ability to function as a guardian of public interest. The livelihoods of thousands of citizens and their dependents may be affected, and it is our duty to respond.”

The Speaker is expected to review the submission and issue a ruling in due course. The outcome could have significant implications for how Parliament handles similar procedural challenges in the future and will likely shape the boundaries of legislative and judicial interplay going forward.