Former NPP General Secretary, John Boadu, has taken aim at Parliament over the vetting of Chief Justice nominee Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, describing the process as an endorsement of "illegality."

Mr Boadu, speaking on JoyNews’ PM Express on November 11, said Parliament’s decision to proceed with the vetting despite serious concerns undermines the integrity of Ghana’s justice system.

“Look at what happened with the vetting of the Chief Justice… a CJ who can say that the convicted, and instead of giving him 30 years, he felt that he was still young, and if you give this 30 years, he may come back to see him alive and may harm him.

"Because of that, he gave him 70 years. That is very dangerous for our body politic. It is very dangerous for our justice delivery in this country,” he said.

He added that such conduct raises questions about fairness and impartiality. “

If a Chief Justice gives a ruling based on his personal feelings and benefits, how many of the cases that go to him will not be determined based on his personal benefits?” he questioned.

Mr Boadu argued that President John Mahama should have withdrawn the nomination or Parliament should have rejected it outright.

“This is something that I would have expected the president to have withdrawn him, or Parliament to have rejected him,” he stressed.

Defending the Minority’s decision to boycott the vetting, Mr Boadu said their walkout was the right step.

“There’s a miscarriage of justice… the opposition made their point. Opposition feels that even the vetting wasn’t necessary because there is a case that can have an effect on what they are vetting the person for.

"So in our thinking, we think that this will have allowed because the Constitution provides we will have an acting CJ, so that you can still perform his function as acting CJ till that matter before the court is cleared. That’s our position,” he said.

He maintained that participating in the vetting would have legitimised wrongdoing.

“We walked out because we didn’t want to legitimise illegality. So that is clear. They shouldn’t have vetted him. If it turns out that the views of a nominee are injurious to the delivery of justice, must he go through?” he asked.

Mr Boadu also lamented Parliament’s weakened ability to scrutinise government actions, blaming it partly on the NDC’s poor parliamentary performance in the 2024 elections.

“We had an abysmal performance… we had just less than 32% of parliamentary representation. If we had full numbers in Parliament, there are certain things that go through in Parliament that will not go through.

"For instance, they imposed a levy on petroleum products within 24 hours. There wasn’t a major critique and review because we were not enough to be able to kick against it,” he said.

He concluded that Parliament’s role in such critical matters has been reduced, and that the vetting process only exposed the dangers of political convenience over constitutional accountability.