The vetting of Chief Justice nominee, Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, before Parliament’s Appointments Committee on Monday, November 10, 2025, turned chaotic and deeply partisan, culminating in a dramatic walkout by the Minority members.

What was expected to be a routine constitutional process became a heated political confrontation that exposed the growing institutional tensions between the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary.

The Background: How It All Began

The controversy traces back to the suspension of Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo by President John Dramani Mahama in April 2025.

The President justified the suspension on grounds of “administrative misconduct” and “judicial impropriety,” allegations that were swiftly rejected by large sections of the legal fraternity, civil society, and opposition political parties.

Justice Torkornoo, who had been appointed by former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, challenged her removal in both the Supreme Court and the ECOWAS Court of Justice.

Her legal team argued that the President’s action violated Article 146 of the Constitution, which prescribes strict procedures for the removal of superior court judges, especially the Chief Justice.

Despite the pending cases, President Mahama nominated Supreme Court Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie as her successor, claiming the judiciary needed stability at the top. This decision instantly divided Parliament, with the Minority describing the nomination as “premature,” “illegitimate,” and “a constitutional travesty.”

The Vetting Day Drama

When the Appointments Committee convened on Monday to vet the nominee, tension filled the chamber from the onset.

The session, chaired by deputy Speaker Ahiafor supported by Majority Leader Mahama Ayariga, was expected to proceed smoothly, but barely minutes into the proceedings, Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin raised a preliminary objection.

Afenyo-Markin argued that Parliament could not legitimately vet a new Chief Justice while the legality of Justice Torkornoo’s removal was still being contested in multiple courts.

He maintained that proceeding under such circumstances undermined the principle of separation of powers and risked prejudicing the outcome of those cases.

“The framers of our Constitution envisaged moments like this. They ensured that the office of Chief Justice is never vacant — either a substantive or acting Chief Justice must be in place. There is no crisis requiring urgency. Let us allow the courts to decide before we act,” Afenyo-Markin told the committee.

However, his submission immediately drew strong objection from the Majority Leader, Mahama Ayariga, who accused the Minority of politicizing the process.

Ayariga insisted that the vetting must go ahead, declaring that “the Appointments Committee is not a courtroom” and that Parliament had no power to suspend constitutional processes based on pending litigation.

A Clash of Parliamentary Titans

What followed was an unprecedented exchange between the two leaders that paralyzed the vetting process for over three hours. Afenyo-Markin referred to Justice Baffoe-Bonnie as a “disputed nominee,” prompting Ayariga to demand an apology and a retraction.

The Majority Leader accused the Minority of “disrespecting the office of the President” and turning the vetting into a political stage.

Afenyo-Markin, however, stood his ground, accusing the Majority Leader of “muzzling dissent” and “reducing a solemn constitutional exercise to partisan showmanship.”

He further alleged that the current administration was seeking to “install a politically convenient Chief Justice” at a time when questions about judicial independence remained unresolved.

Tensions escalated as exchanges grew louder, forcing the Chair to repeatedly call the committee to order. Witnesses described the atmosphere as “toxic and confrontational,” with some MPs shouting over one another in defiance of parliamentary decorum.

The Walkout

After hours of heated verbal exchanges and procedural disputes, the Minority Leader announced that his side would no longer participate in what he described as a “flawed and unconstitutional vetting.”

“We are registering that we reject the nomination, and the record should reflect that the report of the vetting will be a Majority report,” Afenyo-Markin declared before leading his members out of the chamber.

The Minority’s withdrawal effectively left the Majority to proceed alone with the questioning of the nominee, though by that point, not a single substantive question had been put to Justice Baffoe-Bonnie.

The nominee, who had sat quietly through the chaos, was eventually invited to make a brief statement, but the atmosphere remained tense and divided.

Legal And Constitutional Implications

The Minority’s position is anchored on constitutional and legal principles. They argue that proceeding with the vetting while Justice Torkornoo’s case remains sub judice (before the courts) constitutes a breach of the rule of law.

They also contend that since an Acting Chief Justice currently administers the judiciary, there is no functional vacuum requiring urgent replacement.

Echoes from the Past

The events surrounding Justice Torkornoo’s removal have drawn comparisons with the controversial 2021 forced retirement of Auditor-General Daniel Domelevo. In that case, critics accused the then Akufo-Addo administration of undermining independent oversight institutions.

What Lies Ahead

Despite the Minority’s boycott, the Majority side of the Appointments Committee has signaled its intention to complete the vetting and submit its report to the plenary for approval.

Sources within Parliament suggest the Majority may push for an expedited debate to confirm Justice Baffoe-Bonnie before the Christmas recess.