Bagbin Fires Back: Parliament Can Still Revisit Anti-LGBTQ Bill Before Assent

Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin has thrown cold water on claims that the House is powerless to revisit the anti-LGBTQ Bill after passing it. He says Parliament has the constitutional and procedural tools to correct mistakes before any bill reaches the President for assent.

“There's been a recent debate where some lawyers came out strongly to say that by the Constitution, once a law is passed on the floor of Parliament is functus officio. It's not the law,” Bagbin said during a courtesy call by a delegation marking the Supreme Court’s 150th anniversary celebrations.

Bagbin explained that the legislative process doesn't end when MPs vote yes. “We have what we call a post-passage process before you send it to the President for assent. And that process gives the opportunity for Parliament to reflect on what it has passed,” he stated.

The Speaker pointed out that the Constitution doesn't set a deadline for transmitting bills to the President. That gap allows the House to spot and fix errors. “On many occasions, we usually identify some inconsistencies or some errors, and then we go back to the House through what they refer to as the second reconsideration stage,” he said.

To reverse a previous decision, Parliament uses a motion of rescission. “You use the process for rescission, a motion of rescission, to rescind the decision of having read the bill at that time, and then use that to do it,” Bagbin explained.

He revealed that Parliament is preparing to use the same procedure for another bill. “In fact, we are very soon going to use it in connection with the Ghana Investment Promotion Authority Bill which was passed in March,” he disclosed.

The Speaker stressed that the House has built-in mechanisms for “self-regulation or self-correction” before legislation reaches the President. Every bill goes through a detailed markup process and is reviewed by both the Clerk to Parliament and the Speaker before it is presented for presidential assent.

“All the bills are to be signed by the Clerk… After him, they have to be sent to me, and I have to go through it and make sure that everything is in order before I sign it and then direct that it be presented to the President for assent,” he said.

Bagbin's comments come amid a heated debate over the anti-LGBTQ Bill, which has sparked widespread controversy. Communications Minister and co-sponsor of the legislation, Sam George, along with the Majority Leader, had argued that Parliament's job ended once the bill was passed. Bagbin's position directly challenges that view.

During the engagement, the Speaker also pushed for reforms in the appointment of judges. He argued that the Judiciary should have greater authority in selecting its own leadership. “We don't need to be allowing other people to be appointing who should be judge or who should be the head of the judges and that kind of thing,” he said. “That profession should have the opportunity to do it.”

Drawing a comparison with Parliament, Bagbin noted that the Speaker is elected, not appointed by the President. “Is the Speaker appointed? Are the MPs appointed? No. We are elected,” he stated. He acknowledged that the President has a role in the election of the Speaker, but stressed that the final decision rests with MPs. “The President will have a say.

But that say doesn't mean that will be the decision of the House,” he said, citing his own election in 2021 as an example. “The President's say didn't carry the day.”

Bagbin maintained that his allegiance is to Parliament and the nation, not the Executive. “So it means that really the Speaker is an appointee of the members of the House. I owe my loyalty and allegiance to them and to the nation. I don't have to listen to what His Excellency and the rest will do.”

The Speaker also raised concerns about the increasing number of cases reaching the Supreme Court. He warned that the country's highest court risks losing its distinct role. “We've seen as at now that the Supreme Court is being turned into like an ordinary court,” he said. “All sorts of cases are being pushed to the Supreme Court, which is lowering the value of the Supreme Court, not being supreme.”

He argued that some disputes should be resolved at lower levels of the judicial system instead of reaching the apex court. “There are some kinds of things that must end somewhere and not come up to the Supreme Court,” he stated.

Bagbin called for broader national discussions on judicial reforms, particularly as Ghana undertakes a constitutional review process. “We need to look at that and definitely there must be much thinking into it. There shall be c,” he said, trailing off.