WATCH: Trump calls Supreme Court ruling on mail ballots 'great' for Republican Party

Majority Chief Whip Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor has dismissed arguments that the rapid vetting of three Supreme Court nominees is unjustifiable because there is currently no vacant seat on the highest court. According to Dafeamekpor, the nominees were not intended to replace any existing justices who had retired, died or resigned. Instead, the President's decision to nominate them stemmed from the Judicial Council's recommendation and the urgent need to bolster the Supreme Court's capacity to handle its workload.

Speaking on Joy FM’s Top Story, Dafeamekpor emphasized that the President clarified to Parliament that the speed of the vetting and confirmation process was crucial due to the court's heavy workload. He further explained that the nominations were part of the specific agenda for which Parliament had been summoned. The House was tasked with passing an urgent bill, vetting and approving two ministerial nominees, and finally, vetting and confirming the three Supreme Court nominees.

Dafeamekpor questioned the minority's decision to accept the suspension of procedural rules for the ministerial nominees but oppose a similar approach for the judicial nominees. He noted that the decision to expedite the process was not made unilaterally by the majority; rather, the business committee, comprising representatives from both sides of the House, had deliberated and proposed the week's business.

The Majority Chief Whip also pointed to a similar precedent in 2024, when then Energy Minister-designate Herbert Krapa was expedited through the vetting process. Krapa’s nomination was communicated to Parliament on a Wednesday, he was vetted on Thursday, his approval report was reviewed on Friday, and he was confirmed by the President on Saturday. Dafeamekpor argued that the same principle applied in the current case.

Addressing allegations of inconsistency, Dafeamekpor reminded the Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin that two Supreme Court nominees were approved under the previous administration, yet their reports were not laid before Parliament for deliberation. He questioned why the minority was now raising procedural concerns over the current nominations when they had previously participated in parliamentary processes involving judicial appointments.