BY Issah Olegor
The much-anticipated vetting of Acting Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, took off on a stormy note in Parliament on Monday as tempers flared between the Minority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, and Majority Leader, Mahama Ayariga, over the Minority’s description of the nominee as a “disputed nominee.”
The tension-filled session before the Appointments Committee of Parliament was marked by heated exchanges, procedural objections, and political undertones, highlighting the deep divisions over the circumstances leading to the nomination of Justice Baffoe-Bonnie as the next Chief Justice.
Minority Enters Vetting with ‘Heavy Heart’
Opening the session, Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin signaled his side’s unease about the entire process. He acknowledged that the Minority had chosen to participate in the vetting “with a heavy heart,” citing concerns over constitutional breaches and threats to judicial independence.
“We are here with a heavy heart but with an unshakable resolve to defend the Constitution of Ghana, protect judicial independence, and uphold the rule of law,” Afenyo-Markin said.
He continued, “We gather to vet a disputed nominee for the office of Chief Justice of Ghana. This should have been a moment of national pride and institutional renewal; instead, it has become a test of whether Ghana’s judiciary will remain independent or fall under executive and political control.”
The comment immediately triggered a protest from the Majority Leader, Mahama Ayariga, who accused the Minority of breaching parliamentary procedure by describing the nominee as “disputed.”
Majority Leader Raises Procedural Objection
Citing Orders 122 and 123 of Parliament’s Standing Orders, Mahama Ayariga argued that Afenyo-Markin’s comments were out of order and contrary to the rules governing parliamentary debate and committee proceedings.
“Order 123 talks about the content of speeches, while Order 122 provides the grounds for interrupting debate,” Ayariga explained. “I’ve heard the Ranking Member refer to the nominee as a disputed nominee. That is not allowed under our rules.”
He reminded the committee that just a few days earlier, the Minority Leader had filed a motion to stop the vetting process — a motion that was “exhaustively debated” and dismissed by the Speaker.
“The Ranking Member has no authority to reopen that matter. There is no dispute before this committee regarding the nominee. The Speaker ruled clearly, and we are bound by that ruling,” Ayariga stated emphatically.
He insisted that the term “disputed nominee” was inappropriate because Parliament had already accepted the President’s nomination, and the committee’s mandate was now to vet, not to relitigate political grievances.
Afenyo-Markin Fires Back
Unimpressed by the objection, Afenyo-Markin accused the Majority Leader of acting in bad faith and attempting to silence dissent. He claimed that the Majority was using its numerical strength to “intimidate” and “stifle free speech” in Parliament.
“The Majority Leader is clearly acting in bad faith, seeking to obstruct the peaceful process we have begun,” Afenyo-Markin fumed. “There are dark clouds over our democracy when freedom of expression, even by a Member of Parliament, becomes subject to political suppression by a supermajority.”
He defended his earlier statement, arguing that it did not breach any parliamentary rule. “The order he referred to applies to debates on the floor of the House, not to remarks made in committee. I am neither moving a motion nor engaging in debate,” he explained.
The Minority Leader further justified his choice of words, saying the phrase “disputed nominee” reflects the political and legal realities surrounding the nomination.
“The matters giving rise to this nomination are purely political, and every Ghanaian adult knows this,” he said pointedly. “Your side raised it during your campaign — that you were going to remove Justice Torkornoo as Chief Justice — and that has happened. So if we call this a ‘disputed nomination,’ are we wrong?”
He appealed to the Committee Chairman to “take control of proceedings” and ensure fairness. “Chairman, respectfully, please control proceedings. Let our respected Leader of Government Business understand that after I present my comments, he will have his turn to speak,” he urged.
Background: The Roots of the Dispute
The heated exchanges reflect deeper political and constitutional tensions surrounding the judiciary in recent months.
The controversy began when Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Torkornoo was suspended and subsequently dismissed by President John Dramani Mahama earlier this year — a move the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) and Minority in Parliament have described as unconstitutional.
Justice Torkornoo has since filed suits at both the Supreme Court and the ECOWAS Court of Justice, challenging her removal and seeking reinstatement. The government maintains that her dismissal followed due process, but the opposition insists it was politically motivated.
President Mahama’s subsequent nomination of Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, a senior Supreme Court judge and acting Chief Justice, has therefore been seen by critics as part of a broader attempt to consolidate executive influence over the judiciary.
The Minority Caucus had earlier demanded that Parliament suspend the vetting process until the legal disputes concerning Justice Torkornoo’s removal are resolved.
However, Speaker Alban Bagbin ruled against that motion, saying Parliament had no constitutional grounds to delay its constitutional duties.
