Parliamentary Firestorm: Speaker Bagbin Cites Afenyo-Markin for Contempt!
The Ghanaian Parliament is addressing critical matters of accountability and legal adherence as Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin faces a contempt charge for defying a directive on the ECOWAS Parliament delegation. Simultaneously, Speaker Alban Bagbin has clarified that the Kpandai parliamentary seat cannot yet be declared vacant due to a mandatory legal stay on a High Court ruling, igniting debate between the Majority and Minority caucuses.
Ghana's parliamentary landscape is currently grappling with significant issues of accountability and legal interpretation, as evidenced by two prominent developments. Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin has been cited for contempt of Parliament and referred to the Privileges Committee, while Speaker Alban Bagbin has issued a crucial clarification regarding the Kpandai parliamentary seat.
Speaker Alban Bagbin took firm action against Mr. Afenyo-Markin on Wednesday, November 27, citing him for persistent refusal to comply with a formal parliamentary decision that removed him from Ghana’s delegation to the ECOWAS Parliament. The accusation centers on Mr. Afenyo-Markin's continued participation in ECOWAS Parliament sessions in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, from September 25 to 28, 2025, despite an official directive withdrawing him from the delegation. This conduct is deemed to undermine parliamentary authority and violate the integrity of its institutional processes, triggering one of Parliament’s most serious disciplinary mechanisms. Contempt, under Article 117 of the 1992 Constitution and Parliament’s Standing Orders, includes any action that obstructs, impedes, or diminishes the dignity of the House.
Dr. Rasheed Draman, Executive Director of the African Centre for Parliamentary Affairs (ACEPA), expressed that he is closely monitoring the proceedings and eagerly anticipates the Privileges Committee’s probe outcome. Speaking on JoyNews’ The Pulse on Thursday, November 27, Dr. Draman emphasized that this case represents a vital test for parliamentary accountability. While expressing cautious optimism, he also highlighted Parliament’s historical inconsistencies, noting that “Parliament has, at times, struggled to enforce its own rules uniformly, making this an important moment to demonstrate that no member is above institutional regulations.”