The Minority Caucus in Parliament has rejected what it describes as an attempt by the Majority to rush the vetting and approval of three Supreme Court nominees before Parliament rises on Friday, August 28, 2026.
According to the Minority, the proposed timetable does not allow Parliament sufficient time to properly scrutinise the nominees and could undermine the constitutional and parliamentary safeguards governing judicial appointments.
The Caucus made the position known at a press conference at Parliament House in Accra on Thursday, August 27.
The controversy follows the referral of five nominees to Parliament’s Appointments Committee on Monday by Speaker Alban Bagbin. The nominees include two ministerial nominees and three candidates for appointment to the Supreme Court.
The two ministerial nominees are Mahama Ayariga, Member of Parliament for Bawku Central, who has been nominated as Minister for Local Government, Chieftaincy and Religious Affairs, and Dr Zanetor Agyeman-Rawlings, MP for Korle Klottey, nominated as Minister for Environment, Science and Technology.
The three Supreme Court nominees are Justice Sophia Bernasko Essah, Justice Amoako Asante and former Ghana Bar Association President Tony Forson.
Minority willing to vet ministerial nominees
The Minority said it was prepared to participate in the vetting of the two ministerial nominees within a reasonable timeframe.
It argued that Article 78(1) of the 1992 Constitution places a responsibility on Parliament to consider and approve ministerial appointments and said it would perform that duty fairly.
However, the Caucus drew a firm line over the three Supreme Court nominees, insisting that their appointments require a more thorough process.
The Minority referred to Article 144(2) of the Constitution, which governs the appointment of Supreme Court Justices and requires the President to act on the advice of the Judicial Council, in consultation with the Council of State, before seeking Parliament’s approval.
According to the Caucus, such approval should not be treated as a mere formality.
Standing Orders cited
The Minority also relied heavily on Parliament’s Standing Orders in arguing against the proposed timetable.
It cited Order 217(11), which requires the Appointments Committee to report to Parliament within three days after completing its proceedings.
The Caucus stressed that the provision does not mean the entire vetting process must be completed within three days of a referral.
It also cited Order 267(4), which provides for up to three months for a committee to report on a matter referred to it.
The Minority further pointed to provisions requiring relevant committee members to participate in the vetting of nominees, the publication of nominees’ names to allow the public to submit memoranda, and quorum requirements for committee proceedings.
It argued that completing all these processes for five nominees within four days would place unnecessary pressure on the parliamentary system.
‘Nobody voted to suspend the rules’
A major part of the Minority’s argument centred on whether Parliament’s Standing Orders had been formally suspended to facilitate the accelerated process.
The Caucus said Order 3 allows Parliament to suspend a rule or part of a rule, but only after a motion is moved, the House grants leave and reasons for the suspension are stated.
According to the Minority, none of those steps had taken place.
It therefore accused the Majority of attempting to bypass the Standing Orders rather than formally suspending them.
“If the Majority believes four days is enough, let them say so on the record,” the Caucus said, challenging the Majority to move a formal motion and defend the reasons for any proposed suspension.
The Minority described any attempt to proceed without following the established process as “government by ambush, not government by law.”
Warning over judicial appointments
The Minority also warned that rushing the vetting of Supreme Court nominees could have consequences extending far beyond the current parliamentary session.
It identified three major risks.
First, it warned that inadequate scrutiny could result in an unsuitable or compromised individual being appointed to the country’s highest court.
Second, it said a rushed appointment could permanently affect the legitimacy of the nominees and cast doubt over future judgments delivered by the Justices.
Third, the Caucus warned that suspending established safeguards for political convenience could create a precedent that future governments and parliamentary majorities might also exploit.
The Minority argued that Supreme Court appointments should be handled with particular care because the Justices could remain on the bench for many years.
Minority questions urgency of appointments
The Caucus also challenged the argument that the three Supreme Court appointments require immediate action.
It claimed that the Supreme Court currently has a full complement of Justices and that the three nominees are intended to add to the existing number rather than fill vacancies.
The Minority therefore questioned why the appointments should be completed within the four-day emergency recall.
It acknowledged that the courts are currently on vacation but argued that the Supreme Court can still sit during the vacation when urgent matters require consideration.
The Caucus maintained that delaying the vetting for a few weeks would not prevent the administration of justice from continuing.
It also argued that allowing more time would benefit the nominees themselves by ensuring they enter the Supreme Court following a process that commands broad public confidence.
Minority cites GH¢1.7bn losses and power crisis
The Caucus further questioned Parliament’s priorities by pointing to what it described as more pressing national concerns.
It referred to the reported GH¢1.7 billion losses connected to GoldBod and the Bank of Ghana, arguing that the matter deserved urgent parliamentary attention because of its potential implications for the country’s finances and economic stability.
The Minority also highlighted nationwide power outages, which it said had created risks for hospitals, security installations and other critical services.
The Caucus said these issues represented genuine emergencies that deserved parliamentary attention.
It noted that Speaker Bagbin had admitted the motion concerning the reported GH¢1.7 billion losses for consideration but had decided not to allow it to be moved during the special sitting.
Although the Minority expressed reservations about the decision, it said it respected the Speaker’s authority and was prepared to wait for an appropriate opportunity to raise the matter.
The Caucus used this position to argue that the Majority should similarly be willing to wait for the proper vetting of the Supreme Court nominees.
Appeal to professional bodies
The Minority also called on the Ghana Bar Association, retired judges, the Judicial Service, CHRAJ, civil society organisations, religious leaders, traditional authorities and the media to scrutinise the proposed accelerated vetting process.
It urged these groups to consider whether four days would provide sufficient time to properly examine three nominees to Ghana’s highest court.
The Caucus stressed that the issue should not be viewed simply as a confrontation between the Majority and Minority.
Rather, it said the debate concerns the integrity of Ghana’s constitutional system and the credibility of the Supreme Court.
Minority warns it could challenge process
The Minority concluded by warning that it would place its objections on the parliamentary record if the Majority proceeds with the accelerated process.
It further noted that Article 2 of the Constitution provides a mechanism for challenging unconstitutional acts before the Supreme Court.
The Caucus maintained that it was not seeking to obstruct the appointment of qualified Justices but wanted the process conducted in accordance with Parliament’s rules and constitutional requirements.
It reiterated its willingness to vet the two ministerial nominees but called for the three Supreme Court nominations to be deferred.
“The responsible course is not to rush. It is to defer,” the Minority said, urging Parliament to allow the Appointments Committee sufficient time to conduct what it described as a thorough and credible process.
The Caucus ultimately called on Parliament to prioritise constitutional safeguards, scrutiny and institutional credibility over the desire to complete the appointments before the emergency recall ends.
