The Appointments Committee of Ghana’s Parliament has become embroiled in controversy following accusations of unfair treatment levied against the Committee Chairperson, Bernard Ahiafor, by the Minority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin. The Effutu lawmaker expressed deep dissatisfaction with what he perceived as biased conduct by the Chairperson during the vetting proceedings on Wednesday, February 26th, particularly highlighting Ahiafor’s tolerance of interruptions from the Majority side while curtailing the Minority’s questioning. This perceived imbalance, according to Afenyo-Markin, created an environment that obstructed the Minority’s ability to effectively scrutinize the nominees.
A key point of contention revolves around the vetting of the Deputy Attorney General and Minister of Justice nominee, Justice Srem-Sai. Afenyo-Markin cited what he described as the abrupt discharge of Srem-Sai’s vetting as further evidence of the Chairperson’s partiality. He argued that the premature conclusion of the vetting prevented the Minority from fully exploring critical aspects of the nominee’s qualifications and suitability for the position. This, combined with the alleged interruptions during his own questioning and that of other Minority members, formed the basis of the Minority’s protest.
As a direct consequence of these perceived irregularities, the Minority Caucus took the drastic step of rejecting all the nominees vetted on that Wednesday. Afenyo-Markin emphasized that this rejection encompassed not only Srem-Sai but also all other nominees considered that day. He explicitly stated that the decision to approve these nominations would now rest solely with the Majority Caucus, effectively absolving the Minority of any responsibility in the confirmation process. This move underscores the seriousness of the Minority’s concerns regarding the fairness and transparency of the vetting process.
The Minority Leader further detailed specific instances of what he considered unfair treatment. He pointed to interruptions during the questioning of Honorable Ahmed Jerry Shaib, as well as disruptions during his own line of questioning, including an interjection by the Attorney General himself. Afenyo-Markin expressed bewilderment that the Chairperson claimed not to have heard the Attorney General’s interruption, further fueling his suspicion of bias. He also highlighted an interruption by the Majority Chief Whip, arguing that these interventions were deliberate attempts to obstruct the Minority’s scrutiny of the nominees. He contrasted this treatment with the Chairperson’s allowance of a “follow-up” question from the Majority side, suggesting an uneven application of procedural rules.
Despite the escalating tensions, Afenyo-Markin affirmed the Minority’s commitment to cooperation, but stressed that this cooperation was conditional upon respectful and impartial conduct from the Committee Chair. He made it clear that the Minority would not tolerate what they perceived as excesses of discretion from the Chairperson and would continue to voice their objections when necessary. This statement underscores the Minority’s desire for a balanced and equitable process while also signaling their willingness to challenge perceived injustices within the committee’s operations.
Looking ahead, Afenyo-Markin indicated that the Minority Caucus would return on Friday and continue to participate in the vetting process. However, he delivered a clear warning: if the Chairperson’s conduct remained unchanged, the Minority would reconsider its further participation and potentially take additional action. This ultimatum highlights the Minority’s resolve to ensure a fair and transparent vetting process and their willingness to escalate the matter further if their concerns are not addressed. The future of the vetting process and the fate of the nominees now hinge on the Chairperson’s response to these serious allegations and the Minority’s subsequent actions.
