Minority Chief Whip in Parliament, Frank Annoh-Dompreh, has defended the Minority’s decision to walk out of the vetting of three Supreme Court nominees, insisting that the caucus could not participate in a process it considers contrary to parliamentary practice and procedure.
Minority Chief Whip in Parliament, Frank Annoh-Dompreh, has defended the Minority’s decision to walk out of the vetting of three Supreme Court nominees, insisting that the caucus could not participate in a process it considers contrary to parliamentary practice and procedure.
According to him, the walkout was a principled decision taken after the Minority had repeatedly communicated its concerns to the Majority and presiding officers.
Speaking on Joy FM’s Top Story on Thursday, August 27, Mr Annoh-Dompreh stressed that the Minority was not opposed to any of the five nominees currently before Parliament, including the three nominees for the Supreme Court.
He explained that the Minority’s objection was specifically about the procedure adopted for the Supreme Court nominees, particularly the decision to proceed with their vetting without the customary publication period that allows the public to submit memoranda.
“… We are communicating that we were against the process; the process was wrong, as it is against our convention and practice, the presiding officer will not see logic in that. We can’t be part of that; we consider it an illegality. So that was why we had to excuse them,” he explained.
Mr Annoh-Dompreh added that the Minority had relied on Parliament’s Standing Orders, as well as established practice, in arguing that the nominees should have been advertised for public scrutiny before appearing before the Appointments Committee.
The Minority Chief Whip said the decision to boycott the judicial vetting was also informed by what he described as the lack of urgency to justify completing the process within three days.
He argued that the nominees were being considered for the apex court and therefore deserved a more thorough process, including an opportunity for the public to submit relevant information about their suitability.
“I have never, never seen in this House, where Supreme Court justices are nominated and scrutinised, and within three days we are just on the verge of confirming them,” he said.
Mr Annoh-Dompreh further argued that the existence of a parliamentary recess or legal holiday meant there was no compelling reason to rush the appointments.
“If the majority side would not respect the practice and convention, is there any urgency for us to pass them?” he asked.
He also accused the Majority of adopting inconsistent standards, recalling that members of the current governing party had previously insisted on a two-week publication period for Supreme Court nominees when they were in opposition.
According to him, the Minority is demanding that the same standard be applied now.
He said the public’s involvement in the process was particularly important because the nominees would serve on Ghana’s highest court.
“We believe that Ghanaians should have an input. Memoranda have come in, in terms of these nominees who are going to serve on our apex court. The input of the Ghanaian public is important,” he stated.
Mr Annoh-Dompreh maintained that the Minority had raised its concerns well before the vetting began and that the walkout should therefore not be viewed as a surprise or an attempt to frustrate Parliament’s work.
“So it was not that we sprung a surprise on the Majority. It was a position that was prior communicated,” he said.
He insisted that the Minority would continue to stand by its position that Supreme Court nominees should be subjected to the established publication and scrutiny process before their confirmation.
