- Minority in Parliament labels vetting of Supreme Court Judges as unlawful.
- Allegations of secrecy and lack of transparency in the vetting process.
- No urgency in vetting, as there are no vacancies at the Supreme Court
- Call for delay and proper procedure to ensure a fair and transparent process.
The Minority in Parliament has expressed strong objections to the scheduled vetting of two Supreme Court Judges by the Appointments Committee, labeling it as unlawful. The controversy surrounds the nominations of Justice Sophia Rosetta Bernasko Essah and Professor Richard Frimpong Oppong, referred to the committee by Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin.
Governs Agbodza, Minority Chief Whip, voiced his discontent during a preliminary remark at the sitting on Tuesday. He criticized the majority caucus leadership for organizing the meeting without the knowledge of minority members on the committee.
Agbodza described the meeting as “illegal” and “ill-motivated,” questioning the rationale behind vetting respected Supreme Court judges. He emphasized that the judges are the final arbiters in the country and should not be involved in a potentially controversial process.
The Minority Chief Whip further stated that there is no urgency in vetting the judges, as there are no vacancies at the Supreme Court that would hinder the delivery of justice.
Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson, the Minority Leader, echoed Agbodza’s sentiments, suggesting that the vetting process be delayed until the correct procedure is followed. He clarified that the NDC minority is not opposed to the nominees but seeks an opportunity to conduct a thorough review.
Forson emphasized the importance of adhering to proper procedures to maintain the integrity of the vetting process. He proposed that the committee advertise and reschedule the vetting to ensure a fair and transparent process.
The Minority’s concerns highlight the need for a collaborative approach in the vetting process, ensuring that all members of the committee are informed and involved. The controversy has sparked debate on the importance of upholding proper procedures in the vetting of Supreme Court judges.
The scheduled vetting has been met with resistance, with the Minority calling for a delay until the correct procedures are followed. The outcome of this controversy remains to be seen, as the Appointments Committee navigates the complex process of vetting Supreme Court judges amidst concerns of legality and transparency.
