Your objection to vetting of Supreme Court nominees flimsy, hollow and baseless — Ahiafor tells Minority
Chairman of Parliament’s Appointments Committee, Bernard Ahiafor, has rejected the Minority’s objection to the vetting of three Supreme Court nominees, describing the grounds raised as “flimsy”, “hollow” and “baseless”.
The Minority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, had asked the committee to defer the vetting, arguing that there was no immediate vacancy on the Supreme Court bench requiring the process to be expedited.
He also questioned why the nominees were being considered as additional justices rather than to fill existing vacancies and called for the nominations to be advertised for 14 days before the vetting.
The nominees are Justice Sophia Bernasko-Essah, a Justice of the Court of Appeal; Justice Edward Amoako Asante, also a Court of Appeal Justice and former President of the ECOWAS Court of Justice; and private legal practitioner Anthony Forson Jr., a former President of the Ghana Bar Association.
However, Mr Ahiafor ruled that the committee had no authority to overturn a decision already taken by the full House.
“Plenary has a right to vary the decision of the committee. However, if the House takes a decision, no committee can vary the decision of the House,” he said.
According to him, any member dissatisfied with a decision of the House must rely on the procedures outlined in Parliament’s Standing Orders to seek a reversal.
“If you are aggrieved by the decision of the House, the method available for you to reverse that decision is contained in our own Standing Orders,” he said.
Mr Ahiafor insisted that he would not preside over the committee in a manner that sought to alter a directive or decision taken by the entire House.
“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.
“It is not done in any democracy, and I will not be the first to introduce it in Ghana’s democracy.”
He also dismissed the argument that the three Supreme Court nominees should be subjected to a different process from other nominees appearing before the committee.
“I will not also preside over this particular committee and discriminate against the judges, allow the vetting of our colleagues and then reject the vetting of the judges’ nominee,” he said.
“I will not do that today. I won’t do that tomorrow.”
Mr Ahiafor subsequently dismissed the Minority Leader’s objection, describing the grounds relied upon as inadequate.
“I therefore consider all grounds of the Minority Leader as flimsy and hollow,” he said.
“I considered his objection to be frivolous, vexatious, unmeritorious, baseless on the facts, the rules and the law. Therefore, I will accordingly dismiss the objection by the Minority Leader.”
Afenyo-Markin challenges ruling
Mr Afenyo-Markin immediately challenged the decision, arguing that the committee chairman had no authority to unilaterally dismiss a preliminary objection raised before the committee.
He insisted that he was entitled to respond to the ruling and maintained that the matter should be subjected to a vote for the committee to determine.
“It is the House that the committee must resolve. That is how we take decisions,” Mr Afenyo-Markin said.
He further argued that the committee’s Standing Orders did not empower its chairman to issue such a ruling on his own.
“If we are talking law, let’s talk law. It is not within your right to say you have ruled,” he said.
Mr Afenyo-Markin maintained that even the Speaker of Parliament relies on decisions of the House when contentious issues arise, rather than unilaterally determining such matters.