Chaos erupted at the Appointments Committee of Parliament yesterday as Minority members attempted to halt the vetting process of two Supreme Court nominees, Justice Sophia Rosetta Oduokuwa Bernasko Essah and Prof. Richard Frimpong Oppong.
The nominees, appointed by President Akufo-Addo to fill anticipated vacancies on the apex court, were scheduled to face the committee yesterday.
However, the proceedings were marred by controversy as Minority members raised concerns over the constitutionality of their appointments, questioning the President’s authority to appoint more than nine justices to the Supreme Court, in addition to the Chief Justice.
Minority Contention
Led by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) MP for Bawku Central, Mahama Ayariga, the Minority members sought to suspend the proceedings, arguing that the appointments were unconstitutional.
“I think that we have been doing an illegal thing; an unconstitutional thing. The President has been exercising the power without any foundation in the constitution or any law that I know, and I want to raise it and have it captured in the report of the committee,” Ayariga said.
He continued, “It flies in the face of Article 128 of the Constitution, and it is not founded in Article 144 of the Constitution. It offends the discretionary power provisions of Article 296. It doesn’t satisfy the Parliament’s powers to fill in voids under Article 298 of the Constitution.”
“I don’t know if you want to continue with this exercise, but to tell you the truth, we’ve been doing the wrong thing,” he asserted, with the backing of other Minority members.
Majority Fires Back
Despite the challenges, the Majority members remained resolute in their determination to push forward with the vetting process, after pushing back against the Minority’s preliminary objection.
In a strongly worded argument to dismiss the preliminary objection, the Deputy Majority Leader, Patricia Appiagyei, who chaired the sitting, contended that the interpretation of the constitution is the exclusive domain of the judiciary, specifically the Supreme Court.
She further argued that the Minority’s lead objector, Mahama Ayariga, lacks the jurisdictional authority to render binding constitutional interpretations.
Madam Patricia Appiagyei, who is the New Patriotic Party (NPP) MP for Asokwa, described Ayariga’s argument as a subjective understanding of the law, susceptible to varying interpretations.
She emphasised that if Ayariga is convinced of his position’s validity, the appropriate forum for seeking a definitive and authoritative pronouncement is the Supreme Court, not Parliament or its committees, an argument canvassed by the Majority members.
Majority Chief Whip, Frank Annoh-Dompreh, stressed that Parliament’s role is to exercise its constitutional mandate, unfettered by individual members’ legal opinions, no matter how well-intentioned.
He warned that allowing a preliminary objection based on a single member’s interpretation would improperly usurp the judiciary’s constitutional authority and potentially obstruct the legislative process.
He urged the chairperson to reject the Minority’s objection and proceed with the vetting process, citing the need to respect the separation of powers and the constitution.
Delayed Process
The standoff led to a prolonged and intense debate, with the committee’s proceedings temporarily halted as members engaged in a closed-door meeting to resolve the impasse.
However, the Minority members vowed to continue their opposition, asking for the issue to be put to vote for a decision to be taken.
This further set the stage for a protracted and contentious battle, with the development sparking widespread interest and concern among legal experts and the general public, who eagerly watched the unfolding drama on TV.
Voting
After hours of intense debate and argument, the matter was finally decided with a vote, which resulted in the loss of the motion by the Minority members.
The Majority’s victory meant that the vetting process would proceed as scheduled, paving the way for the two nominees to face the committee.
Nominee’s Scrutiny
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court nominee, Justice Rosetta, faced tough questioning from lawmakers during her vetting hearing.
The nominee was grilled on her judicial experience, legal education reform, and her approach to constitutional interpretation.
When asked about her judicial experience, Justice Sophia Rosetta Essah highlighted her extensive background, having served on the High Court of Justice, the Court of Appeal, and presiding over various cases in different regions.
She emphasised her wide exposure to various areas of the law, including commercial law, general jurisdiction, and alternative dispute resolution.
However, some lawmakers expressed concerns about her stance on legal education reform. Madam Rosetta acknowledged the need for reform but emphasised the importance of exposing more people to legal education, citing the country’s growing democracy.
She suggested that experts in the academic area should be consulted to determine the best practices for legal education reform.
The nominee was also questioned about her views on the Star Decius, a legal principle that allows for the development of the law. Madam Rosetta stated that it is beneficial to develop the law to meet current social circumstances, but she could not identify any disadvantages.
When asked about arbitration, Madam Rosetta advocated for alternative dispute resolution and suggested that the apex court could entertain arbitration in matters that come before it.
The hearing also touched on Madam Rosetta’s preferred philosophy of constitutional interpretation. She emphasised the importance of interpreting the law to bring meaning and benefit to the people of Ghana, construing the constitution in a manner that achieves social benefits and does not undermine the law’s intended purpose.
Source:dailyguidenetwork.com