The attempt by the minority in Parliament to block the vetting of the Chief Justice nominee, Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, was torpedoed by the Rt Hon Speaker, Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin.
In a ruling on Friday, November 7, 2025 Speaker Bagbin indicated that the minority’s motion offended Order 103 (F) of the Standing Orders of Parliament, and thus he could not admit it.
Speaking on procedure, he noted that the order 103(F) suggests that “a motion shall not be a subject matter of an action in which a judicial decision is pending in such a way as may, in the opinion of the Speaker, prejudice the interests of the parties in the action.”
He again argued in his ruling that there was no injunctive order on parliament over the matter, adding that “judicial independence should not mean legislative paralysis.”
“In summary, honourable members, the major point of this ruling is that the motion is inadmissible, and same has been returned to the sponsor, the minority leader, Honourable Alexander Afenyo-Markin, as stated clearly by our standing orders,” Speaker Bagin ruled.
MOTION
On Friday, the Minority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, found space during the presentation of the Business Statement for this week to raise concerns about the motion he had filed.
The motion was that Parliament could not accept to vet the nominee, when legal issues surrounding that office were ongoing in court.
According to him, the Majority Leader, Mahama Ayariga, in answering a question regarding the referral to the Appointment Committee, had mentioned that the vetting of the Chief Justice nominee would take place today, Monday, November 10, 2025.
But the minority’s motion was not heard and Friday was the only chance to air their views. As such, he insisted the vetting could not be held with the motion pending.
“It is my contention that in view of the precedence of this House, in respect of matters involving the rule of sub-judication, this House cannot be invited to accept the vetting of the nominee for the Office of Chief Justice when indeed there are pending constitutional matters before the Supreme Court of this Republic…,” the Effutu MP, Afenyo-Markin, said.
GROUNDS
He rose on two grounds: procedural and constitutional. He also relied on the Official Report of the House dated March 5, 2025, from column 140 and read portions of column 142.
He argued that under the 1992 Constitution, Parliament “must not interfere” with the work of the judiciary.
His argument was that the House was taking up the matter and referring it to its Human Rights Committee to also enquire into what would be interfering with the work of the judiciary.
His contention, stemming from Order 216 and others, was that the CJ seat was not vacant and there was a legal proceeding; “however, proceeding to vet a new person to fill that office will be rendering the application of Justice Gertrude a sabbatical no otios.”
OBJECTION
The Minority Chief Whip, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamakpor, MP for South Dayi, who stood to challenge the position of the Minority Leader, informed the House that the Supreme Court had already ruled on such matters.
He recalled in his case against the Attorney General that sought to injunct parliament, “The Supreme Court told me that I cannot injunct this Parliament from performing its constitutional rights and functions.”
“Additionally, our own brother Assaffuah went to court. The court told him, Assafauh v. Attorney General, that this Parliament cannot be injuncted from performing its constitutional rights. So, the matter is settled. So, the minority leader cannot seek to rehash a matter that has already been settled by the Supreme Court,” Dafeamakpor added.
BAGBIN
The Speaker, Rt Hon Albana Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, made a point that favoured the position of the majority that the Court had already had a bite on the matter.
“Now let’s discuss the current situation regarding the Appointments Committee. No one anywhere can stop Parliament from dealing with those matters (the referral to the Appointments Committee) until Parliament has completed the process of dealing with that matter. Do you understand? The Supreme Court has said that severally,” Bagbin asked Afenyo rhetorically.
He continued, “And we just cited two cases in which members of this House have gone to the Supreme Court to try and get the Supreme Court to order this House to stop considering matters that the House was considering on the grounds that they felt it was unconstitutional for Parliament.
“The Supreme Court of Ghana has said that when this Parliament is engaged in its primary responsibility, it will always allow this Parliament to go through that process to the end, and then if the outcome is wrong or goes against a specific provision of the Constitution, then they at that point can make that determination.
“But once they are seized with jurisdiction and they are dealing with the matter, they will not interfere. I haven’t seen a ruling changing this position of the Supreme Court.”
DISAGREEMENT
Though the Minority Leader expressed disagreement with the Speaker’s ruling, especially that due processes were not followed in filling the motion, he did not indicate that he would challenge the unfavourable ruling on his motion.
Meanwhile, Parliament is set to vet a new Supreme Court Justice possibly today, but Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Torkornor is in court challenging her dismissal as the Chief Justice by President Mahama, following a recommendation from the committee that probed the petition.
It is unclear what action the minority would take regarding the matter, but boycotting the vetting is not an option, according to the minority leader.
For more news, join The Chronicle Newspaper channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbBSs55E50UqNPvSOm2z
