BY Daniel Bampoe
The vetting of Acting Chief Justice nominee, Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, before Parliament’s Appointments Committee on Monday, November 10, 2025, descended further into chaos as Minority Chief Whip and Member of Parliament for Nsawam-Adoagyiri, Frank Annoh-Dompreh, sharply rebuked Majority Leader Mahama Ayariga over what he described as his “disruptive and domineering conduct.”
Annoh-Dompreh’s intervention came moments before the Committee was forced to take an unscheduled break following hours of heated exchanges between the Majority and Minority leadership — exchanges that had effectively stalled the vetting process.
A Nomination Mired In Controversy
The tension surrounding the vetting was not unexpected. It followed weeks of controversy over the suspension of Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo by President John Dramani Mahama in August 2025 — a decision many legal and political observers have deemed unconstitutional. Chief Justice Torkornoo, who has since challenged her removal in both the Supreme Court of Ghana and the ECOWAS Court of Justice, remains in a legal battle seeking reinstatement.
Despite the ongoing litigation, President Mahama nominated Supreme Court Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie as Acting Chief Justice, arguing that the judiciary could not function without clear leadership.
The nomination immediately drew sharp criticism from the Minority in Parliament, who described the move as “premature,” “politically motivated,” and “constitutionally unsound.”
When the Appointments Committee convened to vet the nominee, the session was expected to be an opportunity for calm and reasoned engagement. Instead, it quickly turned into one of the most disorderly sittings in recent parliamentary memory.
The Flashpoint: Ayariga vs. Afenyo-Markin
The day’s drama began when Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin sought to make preliminary comments questioning the legitimacy of the vetting in light of the pending court cases on Justice Torkornoo’s removal.
However, Majority Leader Mahama Ayariga immediately objected, claiming such remarks were out of order and irrelevant to the committee’s work.
The clash that followed — marked by shouting, procedural objections, and accusations of bias — paralyzed the session. Ayariga maintained that “the Appointments Committee is not a courtroom” and that Parliament had every right to proceed with the vetting. Afenyo-Markin countered that continuing the process amounted to “prejudicing an ongoing constitutional matter.”
The standoff grew so tense that the chair struggled to maintain order, prompting several senior MPs, including Frank Annoh-Dompreh, to step in.
Annoh-Dompreh Steps In — A Call for Decorum
Breaking his silence after watching the chaos unfold, Frank Annoh-Dompreh expressed deep frustration at how the vetting process had been “reduced to political banter.”
“Initially, I didn’t want to comment,” he began, “but we in leadership have a role to play in helping you shepherd and guide this process. How does it look that the Chief Justice nominee is before us, and the entire process is being reduced into a back-and-forth between the Majority and Minority leaders?”
He criticized the Majority Leader for constantly interrupting Afenyo-Markin and attempting to dominate the proceedings.
“You are marking every sentence the Minority Leader makes,” he lamented. “Why don’t you take your notes and wait for him to finish before you respond? Parliament is not just about the Majority Leader. For heaven’s sake, I represent the people of Nsawam-Adoagyiri, and when I have a view and catch your eye, I must be allowed to speak.”
Rules, Practice, And Parliamentary Convention
Annoh-Dompreh went on to challenge Ayariga’s interpretation of the parliamentary standing orders, particularly Order 103, which the Majority Leader had cited to justify limiting comments during vetting.
“The very rule you referred to — Order 103 — applies to admissibility of motions, not to vetting,” Annoh-Dompreh clarified. “You are interpreting the rule to suit your understanding. We are not only guided by rules; we are guided by practice. There are many things we do here that aren’t explicitly written in the rules but are rooted in long-standing parliamentary practice.”
He reminded his colleagues that even parliamentary traditions — such as the presentation of petitions on Fridays — are not codified but remain accepted practices. “So please, let’s not hide behind selective readings of the rules to stifle debate,” he added.
A Plea to the Chair — and a Warning
Annoh-Dompreh urged the committee chair to reassert control over the proceedings and allow both sides to express their views fairly. “Mr. Speaker, you must lead this process. The way the Majority Leader is positioning himself gives a wrong impression — and the public is watching,” he said pointedly.
He further warned that if the Majority Leader continued to obstruct the Minority Leader, “we will also obstruct him. If that is the strategy, then we will meet you with the same strategy.”
His remarks were met with murmurs of agreement from several MPs on both sides, reflecting growing frustration within the Committee over the chaotic nature of the proceedings.
