Ahiafor dismisses minority’s objection to supreme court vetting as flimsy, hollow

Chairman of Parliament’s Appointments Committee, Bernard Ahiafor, has rejected the Minority’s objection to the vetting of three Supreme Court nominees, describing the reasons given as “flimsy,” “hollow” and “baseless.”

Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin had asked the committee to postpone the exercise, arguing that there was no immediate vacancy on the Supreme Court bench requiring the nominations to be processed urgently. He also maintained that the nominees, being considered as additional justices, should first be advertised for 14 days before appearing before the committee.

The nominees are Justice Sophia Bernasko-Essah and Justice Edward Amoako Asante, both Justices of the Court of Appeal, as well as private legal practitioner Anthony Forson Jr., a former President of the Ghana Bar Association.

Mr Ahiafor, however, maintained that the Appointments Committee had no authority to overturn a decision already taken by Parliament in plenary.

He explained that while the full House could alter a committee’s decision, a committee could not reverse a decision taken by the House. According to him, any member dissatisfied with Parliament’s decision must rely on the procedures outlined in the Standing Orders to seek a reversal.

“I will not preside over this committee and purport to vary the orders or directions or decision taken at the plenary by the entire House,” he said, stressing that such an approach would be inconsistent with democratic practice.

Mr Ahiafor also rejected calls for the committee to treat the Supreme Court nominees differently from other nominees. He argued that allowing the vetting of other nominees while refusing to vet the judges would amount to discrimination.

He subsequently dismissed the Minority Leader’s objection, describing it as frivolous, vexatious, unmeritorious and unsupported by the facts, parliamentary rules and the law.

Afenyo-Markin challenges ruling

Mr Afenyo-Markin immediately challenged the chairman’s decision, arguing that Mr Ahiafor had no authority to unilaterally dismiss a preliminary objection raised before the committee.

He insisted that he was entitled to respond and that the matter should be subjected to a vote for the committee to determine.

According to him, decisions on such matters must be taken collectively by the committee rather than by the chairman alone.

Mr Afenyo-Markin further argued that the committee’s Standing Orders did not empower its chairman to issue such a ruling. He maintained that even the Speaker of Parliament relies on decisions of the House when dealing with contentious matters rather than making unilateral determinations.