The vetting committee has no authority to overturn a decision already taken by the full House - Ahiafor tells Minority

Bernard Ahiafor, the Chair of the Appointment Committee of Parliament, clarified that the committee lacked the authority to overturn decisions made by the full House. This stance came after the Minority members on the Committee decided to boycott the vetting process for Supreme Court justice nominees. They claimed the committee's procedure was irregular.

The committee is currently vetting three nominees nominated by President John Mahama: Justice Sophia Rosetta Bernasko-Essah, Justice Edward Amoako Asante, and Anthony Forson Jr. Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin expressed his disagreement with the committee's decision-making procedure, stating that it did not align with the orders of the House.

He criticized the committee for giving only three days' notice for the vetting process, whereas the standard practice is to provide at least fourteen days' notice and advertise in newspapers beforehand. Afenyo-Markin also referred to similar issues when a short notice was given for the vetting of Supreme Court nominees in the past.

Responding to this, Ahiafor asserted that the Plenary has the authority to alter committee decisions; however, no committee can challenge a House decision. He emphasized that any member dissatisfied with a House decision must follow the Standing Orders to seek a reversal. Ahiafor firmly stated that he would not preside over the committee and attempt to change the House's decisions or directions.

He reiterated that such actions are not acceptable in any democracy and that he would not be the first to introduce such practices in Ghana's democracy. Additionally, Ahiafor rejected the idea of applying different standards to the judicial nominees, emphasizing that all nominees should be treated fairly. He refused to preside over the committee and discriminate against the judges, allowing the vetting of colleagues and rejecting the vetting of the judges' nominees.