The Minister nominee for Communications, Digital Technology, and Innovation, Samuel Nartey George, has stated that his comments directed at the Chief Justice over the delay in hearing a case on the anti-LGBTQ Bill were made in good faith.

According to him, the Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo deliberately delayed the anti-LGBTQ Bill suit that was before the Supreme Court, which sought to prevent former President Akufo-Addo from assenting to it.

He said this during his vetting by the Appointments Committee of Parliament on Thursday, January 30, 2025.

• Read also: Anti-LGBT Bill: Chief Justice has become an impediment in the wheels of justice – Sam George

Mr George had previously accused the Chief Justice of deliberately delaying the hearing of a case related to the anti-LGBTQ Bill, which was filed by journalist and lawyer, Richard Dela Sky.

The Ningo Prampram MP subsequently led a demonstration on October 8, 2024, against the delay in hearing the case and called on the Chief Justice to, as a matter of urgency, produce a timetable for the case to be heard.

However, during the committee hearing on Thursday, when questioned on his stance by Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, Mr George defended his comments, stating that they were made in "good faith" based on the information available to him at the time.

The Minority Leader pressed Mr George, asking whether he believed the Chief Justice was not performing her duties effectively.

He responded that he thought Justice Torkornoo "could have done better in the exercise of a public office," arguing that his criticism was "constructive," as public officers, including the Chief Justice, are not above the law.

Mr George maintained that his issue was not with the process of empanelling judges, which he acknowledged is dictated by procedural rules, but rather with the delay in the actual hearing of the case.

He claimed that when the Chief Justice later set firm timelines, the case progressed more quickly, vindicating his position that she had the power to expedite the process.

However, the Minority Leader pointed out that Mr George was not a party to the case and had not filed as an interested party, questioning whether his public comments were fair to the Chief Justice, who had no opportunity to respond.