Nana Akomea, Vice Chairman of the Bawumia Campaign Team, has placed the blame for the ongoing parliamentary impasse squarely on the shoulders of Speaker Alban Bagbin, describing the current situation as unprecedented.

His comments came in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Bagbin’s declaration that four parliamentary seats were vacant.
Speaking during an interview with Umaru Sanda Amadu on Channel One TV’s Face to Face, Akomea expressed his concern over how the Speaker’s actions have led to this crisis. He emphasized that, in the past, Parliament had always been able to resolve its internal issues without external interference.
Akomea also recalled instances when the current Speaker, during his tenure as Minority Leader, had disagreements with the late former Speaker, Peter Ala Adjetey, but those disputes were eventually settled within the chamber, unlike the ongoing turmoil under Bagbin’s leadership.
“It is an embarrassment what is happening in Parliament. It has never happened before since 1993 and I was in Parliament for a long time. We would have disagreements and verbal exchanges between the Speaker, the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader. But at the end of the day, they’re able to resolve whatever.”
“Bagbin himself was a Minority Leader, and he used to tell Peter Ala Adjetey [former Speaker] that he’s going to go after him. They used to have heated sessions in Parliament. And that is how it’s supposed to be, but at the end of the day, they’re able to move forward. What is happening today where there’s a total impasse has never happened and it’s all the Speaker’s fault.”
Asked if the Majority should not be blamed for the impasse, he retorted, “No, where does the NPP’s side come in?
On Tuesday, November 12, the Supreme Court ruled against the decision made by Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin to declare four parliamentary seats vacant.
This decision came after a challenge was presented by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin.
In a detailed ruling delivered on Thursday, November 14, the five justices who sided with the Majority Leader stated that a parliamentary seat can only be deemed vacant if a legislator switches political parties while maintaining their position in Parliament.
However, two justices dissented, arguing that the Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to rule on the matter. This disagreement highlighted a difference in interpretation regarding the Court’s authority over such issues.