The Minority side in Parliament has objected to the three days notice issued by Parliament for members of the public to submit inputs for the vetting of three nominees being considered for appointment as Supreme Court judges.
According to the Minority, the three days notice was too short to be able to solicit the needed inputs from the public to enable the Appointments Committee of Parliament vet the nominees.
-
Read also:
-
GBA President Tony Forson responds to Kuukuwa Andam’s rape allegations
-
Appointments Committee to vet 2 ministerial, 3 Supreme Court bench nominees and report back within next five days of recall
Explaining why they were objecting to the vetting of the three nominees for the Supreme Court bench, they called for such vetting and approval to be put on hold.
The Caucus said it was not opposed to the nomination of the three Justices.
However, it argued that Parliament’s Standing Orders required the nominees’ names to be published to allow members of the public to submit memoranda on their suitability.
No proper motion moved
Addressing the press ahead of Thursday’s vetting of the nominees by the Appointments Committee in Parliament, the Minority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, said Order 217(10) required such public notice two weeks ahead of a vetting process.
He further argued that no proper motion had been moved on the floor to suspend the House’s Standing Orders, nor had Parliament taken a decision to have the three nominees vetted within three days of the announcement of their nominations.
That, he said, was different from the process followed for two ministerial nominees-Mahama Ayariga and Dr Zanetor Agyeman-Rawlings- for whom a proper motion and waiver had been moved to facilitate their vetting “because they are for the purpose of governance”.
“Those ministries will need a political appointee to supervise and ensure government business goes on, and we are not here to stampede that process.
“Therefore, we believe that because of their own standing in the House, we can take them today,” he said.
Don’t be in haste
Reiterating the Minority’s opposition to the vetting of the three Supreme Court nominees, Mr Afenyo-Markin said all Supreme Court nominees, since 1992, had gone through the established process of public notice and vetting.
“Notice to the public has always met the minimum two-week practice, and this is the first time the NDC is using a super majority to vet Supreme Court nominees just three days after their announcement.
“We want to explain to the people of Ghana that deferring the nominees would cost nothing and the haste would cost everything,” he warned.
Our position not partisan
The Minority Leader recalled that on Monday, the Speaker referred five nominees to the Appointments Committee—two nominees for ministerial positions and three nominees for the Supreme Court.
He said the referral was made on the first day of the emergency recall of Parliament.
According to him, the Majority now wanted all five nominees vetted, reported on and approved before the House adjourned on Friday.
He, however, said the Minority objected to the vetting of the three Supreme Court nominees “because the people of Ghana must participate in the process”.
Mr Afenyo-Markin stressed that the Minority’s position was not partisan but was intended to protect the public interest.
“We would accept it on the two ministerial nominees; we are ready to engage,” he said.
Inconsistencies
The Minority Leader, who is also the MP for Effutu, referred to what he described as the NDC’s own position on the issue in 2024.
He said in 2024, former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo nominated Justices to the Supreme Court and an advertisement was placed in the newspapers, giving the public 10 days to submit their views before the nominees appeared before the Appointments Committee.
He said the NDC, led at the time by then Minority Leader, Dr Cassiel Ato Forson, then Minority Chief Whip Governs Kwame Agbodza, and the current Majority Leader, Mahama Ayariga, opposed the vetting of the nominees.
“They physically prevented the vetting of the nominees, and their argument was that the 10 days was not enough and that the public must be given the opportunity to participate fully in the process. We should therefore suspend the vetting,” he said.
As democrats, he said, the then governing New Patriotic Party (NPP) heeded the request for a suspension to allow the minimum 14-day notice to be observed.
Thereafter, he said the then NDC participated in the vetting and “we listened to them and we engaged”.
“We believe that democracy thrives where parties are able to engage each other, and that was what we did.
“Even after that process, they refused to participate in the final process of approval on the floor, and we did not fight with them,” he argued.
He added: “Today, they are here claiming that just three days after the announcement of Justice nominees on the House floor, there must be vetting and approval. We do not accept that.”
Dangers
Mr Afenyo-Markin argued that proceeding with the vetting could create serious challenges for the legitimacy of the nominees.
“One danger is that a nominee may carry a permanent shadow over their legitimacy, as every ruling these three Justices have ever made, every dispute that matters to this nation, will be met with the question of whether they were properly vetted and whether they were installed in a hurry for one government’s convenience,” he said.
