A dramatic confrontation unfolded in Parliament during the vetting of the Chief Justice nominee, triggering an intense Chief Justice vetting dispute between the Minority and Majority caucuses.
The clash erupted moments after the Minority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, began delivering his opening remarks on behalf of the caucus.
The Minority Leader described the nominee as a ‘disputed nominee,’ arguing that the circumstances surrounding the appointment raised deep constitutional and institutional questions.
Also read: Mahama to launch flagship ‘Nkoko Nkitinkiti’ programme on Wednesday, November 12
He stressed that the vetting should have been a moment of national pride and institutional renewal, but had instead become a test of whether Ghana’s judiciary will remain independent or fall under executive and political control.
The Majority Leader, Mahama Ayariga, immediately objected, invoking Standing Orders 122 and 123, insisting that the Minority Leader’s choice of words violated parliamentary procedure.
According to him, Order 123(5) forbids reopening matters already decided by the House, while Order 123(7) prohibits raising issues relating to the conduct of justices of the Superior Courts unless introduced through a substantive motion.
He argued: “There is no dispute before this Committee regarding the nomination. Referring to him as a ‘disputed nominee’ is unparliamentary and must be withdrawn.”
The Minority Leader rejected the objection, accusing the Majority of attempting to muzzle legitimate political expression within the committee.
“I am not debating. I am making opening remarks. This persistent effort to censor us undermines free expression in Parliament,” he responded.
He maintained that past minority leaders had been allowed to make political contextual remarks without interruption, insisting that the caucus held an unfettered right to express its views on the process.
With tensions rising sharply, the Chairman intervened, calling for calm and urging strict adherence to the Standing Orders. He directed that the nominee be referred to only as Chief Justice nominee, cautioning both sides against escalating procedural disputes.
Despite the explosive exchanges, the Chairman expressed confidence that the Committee could perform its constitutional mandate if members adhered to relevance and decorum.