BY Daniel Bampoe
A fresh constitutional and procedural confrontation erupted in Parliament on Thursday, August 27, 2026, after Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin led Minority members of the Appointments Committee in raising a preliminary objection to the accelerated vetting of three nominees for appointment to the Supreme Court.
The Minority’s objection centred on what it described as a failure to comply with the established requirement for publicly advertising the names of nominees for a minimum of 14 days before they are vetted, arguing that the decision to compress the process into the remaining days of Parliament’s emergency recall was procedurally defective and could not lawfully support the approval of nominees to the highest court.
Afenyo-Markin, speaking on behalf of the Minority members on the Committee, stressed that their objection was not directed at the personal qualifications, competence or character of the three nominees. Rather, he said, the concern was about the process through which the nominees were being subjected to parliamentary scrutiny.
The Minority Leader maintained that the integrity of the appointment process was just as important as the credentials of the individuals being considered, particularly because appointments to the Supreme Court have far-reaching constitutional consequences.
The 3 Nominees
The three nominees at the centre of the dispute are Justice Sophia Bernasko Essah, Justice Amoako Asante and former Ghana Bar Association President Tony Forson.
Their nominations became part of the business of Parliament after Speaker Alban Bagbin referred them, together with two ministerial nominees, to the Appointments Committee following the emergency recall of Parliament.
The referral immediately triggered questions from the Minority over whether the Appointments Committee could properly complete the vetting, submit its report and have the nominees approved before the House rises.
Minority’s Nine Grounds
Afenyo-Markin presented nine grounds in support of the Minority’s preliminary objection.
At the heart of the objection was the argument that the names of the nominees had not been advertised for the minimum 14-day period which, according to the Minority, is the normal procedure before parliamentary vetting.
The Minority contended that the shortened timeline deprived the public of adequate opportunity to scrutinise the nominees and submit memoranda or concerns to Parliament.
For the Minority, public participation is particularly important when the appointments concern the Supreme Court, the final arbiter of constitutional and legal disputes in Ghana.
Afenyo-Markin argued that Parliament should not treat the vetting of Supreme Court nominees in the same manner as an ordinary administrative exercise because the decisions and judgments of the appointees could affect the country for many years.
He consequently questioned the wisdom of attempting to complete the process within only a few days.
No Supreme Court Vacancy
Another central argument raised by the Minority was that there was no immediate vacancy on the Supreme Court requiring urgent replacement.
Afenyo-Markin argued that the Supreme Court currently has its full complement of Justices and that the three nominees were being considered to increase the membership of the court rather than to replace judges who had died, retired or been removed from office.
That distinction, according to the Minority Leader, was crucial to determining whether there was any genuine emergency that could justify departing from the normal timetable.
He therefore challenged the rationale for treating the appointments as an urgent matter requiring Parliament to complete the entire process before the end of the emergency recall.
In the Minority’s view, where there is no vacant seat creating an immediate institutional gap, Parliament has no compelling reason to sacrifice established procedural safeguards in order to complete the nominations within four days.
Dispute Over Standing Order 3
The procedural argument eventually became a direct confrontation over the interpretation of Parliament’s Standing Orders.
Afenyo-Markin argued that the normal vetting process had effectively been reduced from the required minimum 14-day advertisement period to approximately four days.
He maintained that if Parliament intended to suspend or waive the relevant procedural requirements, it should have properly invoked the applicable provision of the Standing Orders through an express motion on the floor of the House.
The Minority’s position was that procedural safeguards could not simply be treated as waived by implication.
According to Afenyo-Markin, a formal suspension of the relevant rules required Parliament to clearly identify the provisions being suspended and follow the procedure prescribed by the Standing Orders.
The Minority therefore insisted that the Committee could not lawfully proceed with the vetting merely because the House was operating under an emergency recall.
Chairman Rejects Minority’s Objection
The objection, however, was rejected by the Chairman of the Appointments Committee, Bernard Ahiafo.
Ahiafo ruled that the Minority’s objection had no basis because, in his interpretation, the requirements relating to the suspension of the rules had already been satisfied.
The Chairman pointed to the decision of the House on Monday, August 24, 2026, when Parliament adopted the Statement of the Business Committee containing a request to waive Standing Order 3.
According to the Chairman, the adoption of that Business Committee statement amounted to the necessary parliamentary action permitting the procedural flexibility required for the emergency sitting.
The Chairman’s ruling therefore cleared the way for the Committee to proceed with the vetting despite the Minority’s objections.
That ruling immediately deepened the disagreement between the two sides.
Minority Walks Out
Following the Chairman’s decision, the Minority members on the Appointments Committee, led by Afenyo-Markin, walked out of the proceedings.
The walkout transformed what had begun as a procedural objection into a major political confrontation over the conduct of parliamentary business and the constitutional process for appointing members of the Supreme Court.
The Minority’s decision to leave the proceedings was an indication that it did not accept the Chairman’s interpretation of the Standing Orders or the basis upon which the vetting was being allowed to continue.
The development also threatens to intensify the broader disagreement between the governing Majority and Minority over the use of Parliament’s emergency recall to process the five nominations.
