The Minority Caucus in Parliament has justified its decision to boycott the vetting of Acting Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, insisting that the move was driven by constitutional caution and a commitment to safeguard the independence of Ghana’s judiciary.
Speaking on Channel One Newsroom on Monday, November 11, 2025, the Member of Parliament for Manhyia South, Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah, clarified that the caucus’ decision was not political obstruction but a matter of constitutional principle, given the ongoing court case challenging the removal of former Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Torkornoo.
Constitutional Implications of the Vetting Process
Mr. Baffour Awuah warned that proceeding with the vetting and possible confirmation of Justice Baffoe-Bonnie while Justice Torkornoo’s case remains before the court could create what he termed a “constitutional conundrum.”
He explained that if the court later rules that Justice Torkornoo’s removal was unlawful, it could trigger a legitimacy crisis within the judiciary.
“If the court decides that the removal of Justice Torkornoo was not lawful, one of the logical outcomes would be to reinstate her,” he said. “However, if by that time Justice Baffoe-Bonnie has been duly appointed as substantive Chief Justice, it raises a constitutional question: how do you remove him, since the Constitution only allows for the removal of a judge through the procedure under Article 146?”
He referenced the precedent set in the Ghana Bar Association vs. Attorney-General case, emphasizing that the removal of a superior court judge can only be done through the Article 146 process, not by a mere court order.
Concerns Over Judicial Independence
The Manhyia South MP further expressed concern about what he described as an ongoing “tug-of-war” between the two senior justices, warning that the situation could undermine judicial impartiality.
“Justice Torkornoo is essentially contesting her removal, which directly affects Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s position,” he noted. “It’s a delicate matter because Justice Baffoe-Bonnie, as Acting Chief Justice, currently wields administrative power over who sits on cases, including those related to Justice Torkornoo’s challenge. This creates an awkward and potentially compromising situation.”
Minority’s Position on the Vetting Boycott
The Minority members of the Appointments Committee boycotted the vetting of Justice Baffoe-Bonnie on Monday, November 10, maintaining that moving forward with the process before the resolution of the court case would be premature and constitutionally risky.
They argued that confirming Justice Baffoe-Bonnie while a legal challenge to his predecessor’s removal is pending could undermine public confidence in the judiciary and the principle of separation of powers.
“The Minority’s stance is about protecting the sanctity of the Constitution and the integrity of the courts,” Baffour Awuah emphasized. “We are not against Justice Baffoe-Bonnie personally, but we must ensure that due process is respected and that no appointment is made under a cloud of constitutional uncertainty.”
Background
Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, a Justice of the Supreme Court, was nominated by President John Dramani Mahama to replace Justice Gertrude Torkornoo after her controversial removal earlier this year. The decision has since sparked widespread debate about executive influence over the judiciary.
The Minority and several civil society groups have questioned both the timing and the legality of Justice Torkornoo’s removal, arguing that it sets a dangerous precedent for judicial independence.
As the legal battle continues, the political and constitutional ramifications of the case have deepened, with observers warning that the outcome could redefine the boundaries of executive power in judicial appointments.
