The vetting of Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie as Ghana’s next Chief Justice (CJ) has sparked heated debate, with the Parliamentary Minority warning that confirming him while seven separate legal challenges contest the removal of former Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Torkornoo risks setting a dangerous precedent.
Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin launched a blistering criticism of the process, describing it as a test of whether Ghana’s judiciary will remain independent or bow to political control.
Speaking at the Appointments Committee, he said the nomination of Justice Baffoe-Bonnie, currently Acting Chief Justice, creates a direct conflict of interest, as he “wields administrative power over proceedings that, if successful, would invalidate the very removal that elevated him.”
“The core issue is not the nominee’s credentials, but the integrity of our Constitution,” Afenyo-Markin said.
“Seven court cases across the Supreme Court, High Court, and ECOWAS Court are currently challenging the legality of his predecessor’s removal. The question of a vacancy is sub judice. Rushing this vetting is not about clarity—it is about creating a fait accompli.”
The Minority Leader argued that Justice Baffoe-Bonnie could have continued as Acting Chief Justice under Article 144(6) until the courts determined the legitimacy of the office’s vacancy. There was, he stressed, no institutional crisis requiring urgent confirmation.
Afenyo-Markin also assailed the Attorney-General for failing to file any defences in the pending seven cases, calling it “scandalous” and a deliberate strategy to allow the matters to “languish undefended” while the vetting proceeds.
He warned that such inaction could lead to international embarrassment, particularly before the ECOWAS Court.
Efforts by the Minority to suspend the vetting of the CJ nominee until the courts provided clarity were rebuffed by the Speaker, who chose to allow proceedings to continue.
In response, Afenyo-Markin led his delegation in a dramatic walkout from the Appointments Committee, effectively boycotting the questioning phase and rejecting the legitimacy of the vetting.
“The nominee appears before this committee as the direct beneficiary of the very constitutional irregularities we are duty-bound to examine,” Afenyo-Markin declared.
He emphasised that moving forward with the vetting while critical cases remain unresolved undermines judicial independence, erodes due process, and risks subverting accountability at the highest level of the judiciary.
The walkout marked a bold statement of defiance from the Minority, underscoring their position that the vetting is constitutionally premature and that they will not be “silent accomplices” to what they termed an executive-driven subversion of the judiciary.
With the legal challenges still active, the confirmation of a new Chief Justice at this stage could invalidate ongoing cases or be seen as an attempt to override judicial review, raising serious concerns about the separation of powers and the rule of law in Ghana.
