The Minority members on Parliament’s Appointments Committee have boycotted the vetting of three nominees for appointment to the Supreme Court, citing what they describe as procedural breaches and inadequate notice for the exercise.
The Minority, led by Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, raised a preliminary objection to the vetting, arguing that Parliament had failed to advertise the nominees for the required minimum period of 14 days before subjecting them to scrutiny.
The objection was presented on behalf of the Minority by Mr Afenyo-Markin, who stressed that their concerns were not directed at the competence, integrity or suitability of the three nominees as individuals.
Rather, he said, the objection was against what the Minority considers an improper process that could not lawfully and fairly be completed within the remaining three days of Parliament’s recall.
Mr Afenyo-Markin reportedly grounded the objection on nine separate grounds, with the central concern being the short notice given for the vetting.
According to the Minority Leader, the established practice requires nominees for important constitutional appointments to be advertised for at least 14 days to allow members of the public and other interested parties sufficient opportunity to submit memoranda or petitions concerning their suitability.
He argued that, in the case of the three Supreme Court nominees, the period had effectively been reduced to four days.
The Minority contended that such a significant departure from the normal procedure required a proper motion on the floor of Parliament to suspend the relevant Standing Order, rather than relying on an administrative or procedural arrangement.
A key part of the Minority’s argument was that the Supreme Court currently has a full complement of Justices.
Mr Afenyo-Markin argued that the nominees were therefore being considered as additions to the existing membership rather than to fill vacancies created by the death, retirement or removal of serving Justices.
In his view, the absence of an immediate vacancy or constitutional exigency meant there is no compelling reason for Parliament to accelerate the process.
He maintained that the circumstances do not warrant what the Minority considers a rushed vetting exercise, particularly when Parliament had only three days remaining following its recall.
The Minority therefore took the position that the vetting should not proceed until the appropriate procedural requirements had been satisfied.
The objection was, however, rejected by the Chairman of the Appointments Committee, Bernard Ahiafo.
In his ruling, Mr Ahiafo explained that the Minority’s objection had no sufficient grounds because the relevant procedural requirement had already been addressed by the House.
He pointed specifically to Standing Order 3, which deals with the suspension of rules and provides procedural flexibility during parliamentary sittings.
According to the Chairman, the House had already satisfied the requirement when it adopted the Statement of the Business Committee on Monday, August 24, 2026, which contained a request to waive Standing Order 3.
He therefore ruled that the Committee could proceed with the vetting despite the Minority’s concerns about the shortened notice period.
Following the Chairman’s ruling, the Minority members on the Appointments Committee walked out of the proceedings, effectively boycotting the vetting of the three Supreme Court nominees.
The development has introduced a fresh disagreement between the Majority and Minority over parliamentary procedure and the handling of constitutional appointments.
The dispute centres not on the nominees themselves, according to the Minority, but on whether Parliament followed the proper process in scheduling their vetting.
The Minority maintains that the shortened notice undermines the established procedure and limits the opportunity for public scrutiny of candidates for one of the country’s highest judicial institutions.
The Majority side, through the Committee Chairman’s ruling, maintains that the necessary procedural waiver had already been secured by the House, allowing the Appointments Committee to proceed.
The walkout could heighten political tensions surrounding the consideration of the Supreme Court nominees, particularly given the importance of appointments to the apex court.
The Supreme Court plays a critical role in interpreting the Constitution, adjudicating disputes involving public institutions and determining matters of significant national and constitutional importance.
Appointments to the court are therefore subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the Appointments Committee before they can be considered for approval by the House.
The disagreement over the notice period has consequently raised broader questions about how Parliament balances procedural requirements with the need to deal with urgent or time-sensitive constitutional appointments.
For now, the Committee’s ruling allowed the vetting process to continue, while the Minority had made clear its opposition to what it considers an accelerated procedure.
The three nominees were scrutinised over their professional backgrounds, judicial experience, understanding of constitutional law, integrity and suitability for service on the Supreme Court.
By 1960news.com
