ɛno ne asɛm no

The Minority participated in the vetting of the ministerial nominees but has declined to participate in the vetting of the Supreme Court (SC) nominees.

Their reason deserves serious consideration. They say, in substance that they have not been given enough time.

GOGO thinks that is a sound objection.

There is no obvious urgency requiring these nominees to be vetted today. A short delay will not prevent the SC from constituting panels or performing its functions.

ADVERTISEMENT

Yet the Committee is being asked to consider appointments that may shape the law and constitutional governance for decades.

SC vetting should never become an exercise in processing names. Committee members should have reasonable time to study the nominees’ judgments, writings, professional records, judicial philosophies, temperament, independence, and approach to the Constitution.

They should have time to invite and listen to informed views from those who know their work: members of the Bar, academics, former judges, practitioners, civil society and other relevant experts, both supportive and critical.

They should be able to identify difficult questions before entering the room rather than discover them while sitting at the table.

A lifetime appointment deserves more than a hurried afternoon.

So, on the principle, GOGO agrees with the Minority: give Parliament adequate time to do its due diligence.

But there is a second question.

What should the Minority do when it makes that reasonable request and the Majority nevertheless decides to proceed?

Here, GOGO reluctantly parts company with the Minority.

Do not boycott.

Put your objection on the record. Tell the country that you have been denied adequate preparation time. Demand an adjournment. Explain why the timetable undermines proper parliamentary scrutiny.

But if the Majority rejects that request and proceeds, take your seats.

Prepare as much as the circumstances permit. Divide the work. Study the most important judgments. Research the nominees’ records. Coordinate the questions. Probe their understanding of constitutional limits, precedent, judicial independence, fundamental rights, separation of powers and judicial temperament.

Ask the difficult questions. Follow up when answers are evasive. Expose contradictions where they exist. Extract commitments where appropriate. And, above all, create a record.

If the majority is determined to proceed, empty Minority chairs will not stop the vetting. The nominees can still be questioned, recommended and ultimately approved.

The practical choice therefore becomes uncomfortable but fairly simple: will the nominees face only the questions the Majority chooses to ask, or will they also face the questions the Minority wants answered?

There are moments when a boycott is powerful precisely because absence prevents business from proceeding or dramatically changes its legitimacy.

This does not appear to be one of them.

A parliamentary Minority rarely possesses the votes to determine outcomes. Its power lies in scrutiny, interrogation, exposure, persuasion, dissent and the creation of a record for posterity.

And posterity matters particularly with a SC appointment.

Years from now, when one of today’s nominees writes a judgment of enormous constitutional consequence, Ghanaians should be able to return to the parliamentary record and see what that Justice was asked, what the Justice said, what concerns were raised, and what Parliament knew before granting its approval.

You cannot create that record from an empty chair.

The Minority is right to protest the haste. It is right to demand adequate time. It is right to insist that SC appointments deserve deeper scrutiny than the timetable apparently allows.

But having made that protest, if the Majority insists on proceeding, show up. Show up under protest and put your objection firmly on the record.

If inadequate preparation time is the circumstance imposed upon you, say so, but prepare as much as you possibly can and make your presence count.

Ask the difficult questions, probe the answers, challenge inconsistencies, register your dissent, and create a record for posterity.

The Majority may have the votes to approve, but the Minority still has the questions to ask.

For appointments that may shape our Republic for decades, the country needs those questions on the record.

GOGO hopes this balancing becomes the test whenever a parliamentary boycott is contemplated:

What does absence achieve, and what does participation preserve? If absence can prevent or meaningfully alter an objectionable process, a boycott may be justified.

But where the Majority can proceed regardless, the Minority should weigh carefully whether walking away merely surrenders its opportunities to scrutinize, question, challenge, dissent and create a record for posterity.

Protest should not become self-disarmament.