Minority Leader in Parliament, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, has accused the governing National Democratic Congress (NDC) of abandoning its previous opposition to what it described as the “packing” of the Supreme Court following President John Dramani Mahama’s nomination of three additional justices.

Mr Afenyo-Markin made the assertion on Thursday when the Parliamentary Appointments Committee was preparing to vet the three nominees, a process that was stalled after the Minority raised objections to the manner and timing of the exercise.

He insisted that the Minority’s concerns were not directed at the nominees personally but at what he described as inconsistency in the governing side’s position on the size of the Supreme Court.

The Minority Leader said the three nominees, whom he described as two men and a woman with long records of service to Ghana and the sub-region, had not been rejected by his caucus.

“The president has the power and mandate to nominate them. We are not opposed to that nomination, save that when it was Akufo-Addo's time and he brought three Supreme Court nominees, your side argued that it amounted to the packing of the courts,” he said.

‘Where is your principle?’

Mr Afenyo-Markin said the argument against the previous administration’s attempt to add three justices to the Supreme Court should equally apply to the current administration.

He noted that Parliament had already approved seven nominees under President Mahama and that the addition of the latest three would bring the number of newly appointed justices to 10.

“So as we speak today, you have nominated seven; Parliament has passed them, and these three added to it make it 10. So what has changed? Where is your principle?” he asked.

According to him, the current composition of the court would be larger than it would have been had Parliament approved the three additional nominees proposed by former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo.

“Now, the numbers to the Supreme Court are far more than it would have been if Akufo-Addo's three additional nominees had been approved by Parliament. So where is your principle of the packing of the court?” he queried.

He concluded, "Where is your principle? You have none. We so submit.”

Minority objects to vetting timetable

The development followed a formal objection raised by the Minority to the proposed timetable for the vetting.

Mr Afenyo-Markin argued that the process should not be rushed, particularly because, according to him, there was no vacancy on the Supreme Court requiring an urgent appointment.

He maintained that the nominees were being considered to add to the existing membership rather than to fill a vacant seat.

The Minority subsequently asked that its objection, together with the committee’s eventual determination, be captured in the committee’s report to Parliament under Order 215.

Mr Afenyo-Markin stressed that the objection was not intended to frustrate the committee’s work or embarrass the nominees.

“Record this objection and the committee's final determination in the report of the committee ultimately as it is presented to the House under Order 215,” he said.

He added that the Minority recognised the professional credentials of the nominees and acknowledged the President’s constitutional authority to nominate persons for appointment to the Supreme Court.

The stalemate over the vetting has therefore shifted attention from the qualifications of the three nominees to the broader political and constitutional debate over the size and composition of Ghana’s apex court.