'Why the rush?' - Minority protests vetting of Supreme Court nominees

Alexander Afenyo-Markin, the leader of the Majority Caucus in Parliament, has questioned the urgency behind the decision to fast-track the vetting of three Supreme Court nominees, arguing that there are currently no vacancies on the apex court.

Speaking at a press conference on August 27, 2026, Afenyo-Markin said Parliament should not be made to treat the vetting of the nominees as an emergency when the Supreme Court is already operating with its full complement of justices.

“Ladies and gentlemen of the press, there is no vacancy and there is no emergency,” he said.

According to him, the three nominees are not being considered to fill vacant positions on the Supreme Court, but rather to increase the number of justices on the bench.

He argued that the Supreme Court is currently functioning effectively, hearing cases and delivering judgments despite the absence of the three nominees.

“The Supreme Court currently sits with its full complement of justices, hearing cases and handing down judgments as it should,” he said.

“What the President is proposing is not to urgently replace anyone who has left; it is to add three further justices to the members already sitting there,” he said.

Afenyo-Markin therefore questioned why Parliament should be required to complete the vetting within three days when there was no vacant position that needed to be urgently filled.

He drew a comparison with the replacement of two government ministers who died in a helicopter crash last year, describing those positions as genuine vacancies at the heart of government.

According to him, despite the importance of those positions, the government took about a year to nominate replacements.

“If filling those two genuine ministerial vacancies that truly had been an emergency, he would not have waited for that long,” he said.

“So we ask again: if a full year was acceptable for real vacancies in government, why is three days now being treated as an emergency for seats on the Supreme Court that are not even vacant?” he quizzed.

He maintained that the judicial vacation should also not be used as justification for rushing the process, insisting that the justice system remains operational.

“There is no fire here. Yes, this is the judicial vacation, but administration of justice has not entirely come to a halt,” he said.

Afenyo-Markin said the Majority Caucus was prepared to cooperate with the vetting of the two ministerial nominees, Mahama Ayariga and Zanetor Agyeman-Rawlings, but would resist what he described as an unnecessary rush to vet the Supreme Court nominees.

“We are ready to vet the two ministerial nominees fairly and promptly. We will not accept what we will not accept is that three Supreme Court nominees [are] being rushed through as though the court cannot function another week without them,” he said.

He further argued that Parliament has enough time to complete the process without compromising the work of the House.

According to him, the House is currently in August and has the whole of September available to deal with the nominations. He noted that parliamentary committees could also sit when the full House is not in session.

“If the two weeks is dealt with, the committee can still come in September, somewhere in the second week of September, and vet these nominees,” he said.

He added that the committees could complete their reports before Parliament resumes in October, allowing the House to take a decision before the beginning of the new legal year.

“Still pass them or take a decision on them before the legal year begins. So why the rush?” he asked.

The Majority Caucus leader also accused the governing National Democratic Congress (NDC) of reneging on its earlier commitment to exercise restraint despite holding a commanding majority in Parliament.

He said the decision to fast-track the vetting of the Supreme Court nominees was part of what he described as a broader pattern of the government using its parliamentary numbers to its advantage.

“When this government got into office in a commanding majority in this House, its own leader stood before Ghana and promised restraint. They promised the country they would not abuse the numbers the people have given them,” he said.

“But that promise did not survive long. It has been tested and broken again and again since this government took its seat,” he added.

Afenyo-Markin warned that the continued use of the parliamentary majority to push through processes at speed could undermine public confidence in the government's promises.

“What the Majority is presently doing with these three Supreme Court nominations is not a new departure. It is simply the latest chapter in the broken promises and it is a terrible culture that must end,” he said.

He added that a parliamentary majority that repeatedly seeks to bend the rules for convenience should not be surprised if Ghanaians become sceptical of future promises of restraint.