How do Minority intend to win two-thirds of votes if their aim isn’t to carry Torkornoo’s case? – Inusah Fuseini – Life Pulse Daily

Introduction

The political landscape in Ghana’s Parliament has witnessed a heated debate surrounding the confirmation process for Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, the presidential nominee to succeed former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo. This controversy has been amplified by statements from Inusah Fuseini, a former MP and prominent political commentator. He questions the Minority Group’s ability to secure a two-thirds majority in Parliament, specifically to block the vetting of Baffoe-Bonnie, while simultaneously distancing themselves from Torkornoo’s ongoing legal battles. This article dissects the constitutional, procedural, and political dimensions of this dispute, exploring its implications for Ghana’s democratic governance.

Analysis

Contextualizing the Minority’s Motion

On October 29, 2025, the Minority Group filed a Motion of Urgency in Parliament, urging a postponement of Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s vetting until the resolution of court cases initiated by the former Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo. The motion, spearheaded by Hasshan Tampuli, MP for Gushegu, claims that the appointment process cannot proceed while unresolved legal matters involving Torkornoo linger.

However, Fuseini challenges this rationale, arguing that the Minority’s true objective is to weaponize the vetting process against the current government, not to address Torkornoo’s legal struggles. His critique underscores a broader tension between constitutional norms and partisan political strategies in Ghana’s parliamentary system.

Constitutional Framework vs. Political Strategy

Fuseini emphasizes that Ghana’s 1992 Constitution explicitly delineates the roles of the executive, legislature, and judiciary. He asserts that the President’s nomination of a Chief Justice is a constitutional mandate under Article 144(1), which cannot be obstructed by Parliament. Similarly, Article 146 stipulates that decisions made by vetting committees are final, negating the possibility of legal recourse.

The political philosopher highlights that debates about appointments are parliamentary prerogatives, not judicial matters. Attempting to involve the courts—an arm of government tasked with interpreting laws—would violate the separation of powers, a cornerstone of Ghana’s constitutional democracy.

Summary

The clash between the Minority Group and Fuseini revolves around the legitimacy of delaying Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s vetting. While the Minority cites Turkornoo’s pending cases, critics argue this tactic masks a deeper political agenda. Fuseini urges adherence to constitutional boundaries, warning against congressional overreach into judicial authority.

Key Points

Constitutional Boundaries in Appointment Processes

Ghana’s Constitution reserves the President’s authority to nominate the Chief Justice and Parliament’s role to approve nominees. Delays by the Minority risk exceeding constitutional timelines, potentially undermining the executive’s mandate.

Political Motivations vs. Procedural Legitimacy

Analysts speculate that the Minority’s motion may aim to delay governance appointments, a tactic observed in other multiparty systems. However, legal experts caution that baseless motions could erode public trust in parliamentary accountability.

Public Perception and Media Influence

The heightened media scrutiny surrounding this dispute underscores the role of information dissemination in shaping public opinion. Misinformation about “judicial interference” risks distorting voter perceptions ahead of local elections.

Practical Advice

Promoting Judicial Independence

To safeguard Ghana’s judiciary, the Minority should avoid politicized motions. Instead, they could advocate transparently for reforms in judicial accountability or resourcing, which align with parliamentary mandates without infringing on executive prerogatives.

Enhancing Parliamentary Oversight

Opposition legislators should focus on scrutinizing nominees’ qualifications and judicial philosophies rather than leveraging delays to obstruct governance. This approach maintains credibility and reinforces bipartisan collaboration.

Public Education on Constitutional Processes

Civil society organizations and media outlets must educate citizens on the separation of powers. Clear explanations of constitutional roles can mitigate sensationalism and foster informed civic engagement.

Points of Caution

Risks of Undermining Institutional Trust

Repeatedly weaponizing procedural motions could normalize political interference in governance, eroding confidence in democratic institutions. Stakeholders must prioritize transparency to avoid perceptions of gatekeeping.

Ethical Campaigning in Parliament

Lawmakers should avoid framing parliamentary debates as binary “win/lose” scenarios. Constructive dialogue about appointments fosters national unity, while adversarial tactics deepen polarization.

Comparison

Global Parallels in Judicial Confirmations

Similar disputes occur globally, such as the U.S. Senate’s delays in confirming judicial nominees during presidential administrations. However, Ghana’s constitutional framework provides clearer guidelines, necessitating adherence to Article 144(1).

Historical Precedents in Ghana

Past confirmations, like that of Justice Kwasi Anin Yeboah in 2015, set precedents for expeditious vetting. Comparative analysis reveals that delays often correlate with contentious political climates, reinforcing the need for procedural discipline.

Legal Implications

The Minority’s motion raises legal questions about the enforceability of parliamentary directives against court orders. Article 144(1) grants the President sole authority to nominate the Chief Justice, while Parliament’s ratification is discretionary. If the Minority oversteps these boundaries, the affected party could challenge the motion as unconstitutional.

Furthermore, Article 7 of Ghana’s Constitution prohibits the legislature from imposing conditions unrelated to an appointee’s competence. Linking the vetting process to unrelated court cases (e.g., Torkornoo’s) may violate this principle, leaving the motion vulnerable to legal challenges.

Conclusion

The controversy surrounding Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s confirmation underscores the delicate balance between partisan politics and constitutional governance in Ghana. While the Minority’s intent remains contested, adhering to the 1992 Constitution’s separation of powers remains critical. Public discourse must prioritize clarity, accuracy, and respect for institutional roles to maintain Ghana’s democratic integrity.

FAQ