Minority Leader and Effutu MP, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, has described the heated exchanges during the vetting of Chief Justice nominee, Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, as a deliberate attempt to disrupt proceedings.

Speaking on Adom FM’s Dwaso Nsem, Afenyo-Markin said that in politics, opponents often “test your temperament” to provoke reactions that shift focus from substantive national issues.

“Each and every day as we move about, people are testing. People will deliberately do things to see how Afenyo-Markin will react, like during the CJ nominee’s vetting,” he stated.

He explained that he had anticipated the Majority caucus’ strategy ahead of the vetting and mentally prepared himself not to fall into what he described as a “trap.”

“I knew what the other side was going to do and I had prepared myself for it. All they wanted to do was bait me, get me to react, so the process is disrupted,” he said.

Afenyo-Markin added that his approach was guided by a desire to highlight the challenges faced by former Chief Justice, Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, during her tenure, emphasising that political theatrics should not overshadow crucial judicial matters.

“I wanted Ghanaians to know the suffering and pain Justice Gertrude Torkornoo was pushed through,” he explained.

He also cautioned against reacting impulsively in parliamentary debates, noting that strategic provocations are often used to divert attention from pressing national issues.

“It is not every time or everything you become aggressive. Sometimes they do these things to divert attention when you raise an important national issue. So, when you are always quick to react, they get you,” he said.

The comments come after tense scenes at the Appointments Committee on Monday, November 10, during the vetting of Justice Baffoe-Bonnie, President John Mahama’s nominee for Chief Justice.

The tension escalated when Afenyo-Markin referred to the nominee as a “disputed nominee,” prompting the Majority Leader, Mahama Ayariga, to object, calling the remark disrespectful and prejudicial.

Following a temporary suspension of the sitting, the Minority caucus boycotted the remainder of the process, leaving only the Majority side to continue the vetting.