The Minority in Parliament has walked out of the Appointments Committee after challenging the decision to proceed with the vetting of three nominees for appointment to the Supreme Court, arguing that the process was not sufficiently advertised and could not lawfully be completed within the limited time available.
The objection, led by Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, centred on what the Minority described as a departure from the established practice of giving the public at least 14 days’ notice before the vetting of nominees.
According to the Minority, the notice period for the current exercise had effectively been reduced to four days, raising concerns about transparency, public participation and adherence to parliamentary procedure.
Mr. Afenyo-Markin stressed that the objection was not directed at the three nominees personally but at the process through which their nominations were being considered.
He argued that there was no compelling urgency to justify the shortened timeline, particularly because the Supreme Court currently has a full complement of Justices.
The Minority Leader maintained that the nominees were being considered to increase the membership of the Court rather than to immediately fill a vacancy resulting from the death, retirement or removal of an existing Justice.
He therefore questioned why Parliament should depart from the normal procedure when, in his view, there was no immediate exigency requiring the nominations to be processed within the remaining three days of the current recall of Parliament.
Mr. Afenyo-Markin raised nine grounds in support of the preliminary objection, including the failure to provide the customary 14-day period for public notice.
He further contended that the reduction of the notice period required Parliament to properly suspend the relevant Standing Orders through a motion on the floor of the House.
However, Chairman of the Appointments Committee, Bernard Ahiafo, rejected the Minority’s objection, ruling that it had no procedural basis.
Mr. Ahiafo explained that Standing Order 3, which provides for the suspension of rules and procedural flexibility during parliamentary sittings, had already been complied with when the House adopted the Business Committee’s Statement on Monday, August 24, 2026.
The Business Committee’s Statement, he said, contained a request for the relevant Standing Order to be waived, thereby clearing the procedural path for the vetting exercise.
The ruling triggered a protest from the Minority members, who subsequently walked out of the committee proceedings.
The development has turned the vetting of the three Supreme Court nominees into a fresh parliamentary procedural dispute, with the Minority questioning the manner and speed with which the nominations are being processed, while the Majority side maintains that the House had already taken the necessary procedural steps.
The three nominees are expected to undergo the committee’s scrutiny as Parliament proceeds with the process of considering their nominations for appointment to the apex court.
Source:www.kumasimail.com
