The vetting of three nominees for appointment to the Supreme Court is ongoing despite a boycott by the Minority in Parliament over the timetable for the exercise.

The Majority side of Parliament is currently conducting the vetting before the Appointments Committee, with Justice Edward Amoako Asante presently appearing before the committee.

The Minority withdrew from the process after formally objecting to what it considers an unnecessarily compressed timetable for scrutinising the nominees.

Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin argued that the Supreme Court currently has its full complement of Justices, and therefore no vacancy requires the appointments to be treated as an urgent matter.

He said the three nominees were being considered to augment the existing membership of the apex court rather than to fill vacancies created by retirement, death or removal.

Addressing the Appointments Committee on Thursday, August 27, Mr Afenyo-Markin stressed that the Minority’s objection was not directed at the nominees or the President’s constitutional authority to nominate persons for appointment to the Supreme Court.

Rather, he said, the concern was about the procedure and the limited time available for the committee to properly examine the nominees.

The Minority argued that the nominees were submitted to Parliament only on Monday, leaving members with insufficient time to review their professional records and other relevant documents before the vetting.

It therefore called for the usual publication and notice period to be observed to allow the public to submit memoranda on the nominees.

“These nominations came to the House on Monday. Let us reason together and let us be seen being consistent with our political views. If you want to follow the precedent, please suspend today’s sitting, properly put out the advert as you requested when you were in opposition, and let us wait for the 14 days,” the Minority argued.

According to the Minority, adhering to the established procedure would ensure that the process is conducted with the requisite diligence and would also prevent the nominees from being subjected to an unnecessarily rushed exercise.

It maintained that there was no immediate harm to the state, the judiciary or litigants if the vetting was postponed to allow for adequate preparation.

The Minority further stressed that its position should not be construed as an attempt to frustrate the nominees or prevent the committee from performing its constitutional mandate.

The three nominees are Justice Sophia Bernasko-Essah, a Justice of the Court of Appeal; Justice Edward Amoako Asante, a Court of Appeal Justice and former President of the ECOWAS Court of Justice; and private legal practitioner Anthony Forson Jr., a former President of the Ghana Bar Association.

However, Chairman of the Appointments Committee, Bernard Ahiafor, rejected the Minority’s concerns and defended the decision to proceed with the vetting.

Mr Ahiafor described the Minority’s grounds for objecting to the process as “baseless”.

He maintained that the President’s request for Parliament to be recalled specifically included the referral, vetting and consideration of the three Supreme Court nominees.

According to him, the committee had already considered the issue during a preliminary meeting and determined that the judicial nominees formed part of the matters Parliament was recalled to address.

He also argued that Parliament’s decision to suspend aspects of its Standing Orders to facilitate the consideration of the urgent business before the House provided the basis for the accelerated process.

The Majority subsequently proceeded with the vetting despite the Minority’s decision to walk out.

The exercise is expected to continue with the nominees appearing before the committee for questioning on their professional backgrounds, judicial experience and suitability for appointment to the Supreme Court.