On Thursday, August 27, the Minority in Parliament walked out of the Appointments Committee’s proceedings regarding the vetting of three nominees for the Supreme Court. They protested what they viewed as an unjustified rush to consider the nominations. Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin led the protest, stating that there were currently no vacancies on the Supreme Court to justify the accelerated timetable for the vetting process.
During the committee session, Afenyo-Markin clarified that the opposition was not challenging President John Dramani Mahama’s constitutional authority to nominate Supreme Court justices, nor were they opposed to the nominees themselves. “This is not an objection to the principle of vetting. It is an objection to the process; neither is it an objection to the nominees as individuals. It is an objection rooted in the 1992 Constitution and the standing orders of Parliament,” he explained. Afenyo-Markin emphasised that the Supreme Court currently had a full complement of justices and questioned the necessity for a hastened process.
“We advance nine distinct grounds, each sufficient on its own yet collectively decisive. First, there is no vacancy on the Supreme Court, and thus no exigency to justify a compressed timetable,” he stated. “Chairman, the Court currently sits with its full complement of justices. No seat is vacant.”
He emphasised that the three nominees are being considered as additions to the Court’s existing membership rather than replacements for vacancies arising from death, retirement, or removal. “These nominees are not filling any gap; they are simply being added to the bench,” he said.
Afenyo-Markin argued that the absence of a vacancy undermines the rationale for fast-tracking the process. “This is critical because the sole justification offered for compressing the vetting timetable is urgency. Yet urgency presupposes a pressing vacancy, which does not exist,” he concluded. He also challenged the Majority to identify the consequences of delaying the appointments and subjecting the nominees to the usual parliamentary scrutiny.
“The committee is respectfully urged to require the majority to identify precisely and on record what harm befalls a state, the judiciary, or any litigant if these three additional appointments are averted with the same care that would ordinarily attend any Supreme Court nomination,” he said. “We submit that no such harm can be shown because none exists.” The Minority Leader further criticised the three-day timetable set for the process, saying it departed from what he described as established practice since the adoption of the 1992 Constitution.
“We submit that since 1992, all Supreme Court nominees have gone through the regular period of notice where this committee advertises in the dailies for two weeks,” he said. He questioned whether nominations announced in Parliament on Monday should result in vetting and voting by Thursday.
“It must not be that just Monday when Mr. Speaker announced the nomination as received from the President, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, Parliament is supposed to vote,” he said.
Afenyo-Markin again stressed that the Minority was not opposed to the nominees or the President’s constitutional mandate. “It is not our position to oppose any of the nominees, nor are we stating that the President lacks the constitutional authority to make nominations for the Supreme Court,” he said. He urged that the objection be formally addressed and documented before the vetting continues.
“We request that this objection be resolved by this committee before proceeding further and that it be included in the record of these proceedings, regardless of the outcome,” he added. The Minority’s walkout allows the Majority to proceed with the vetting, as the dispute revolves around Parliament’s procedures for considering presidential nominations to Ghana’s highest court.
