Franklin Cudjoe, President of the policy think tank IMANI Africa, has thrown his support behind the Minority in Parliament’s decision to recuse themselves from the Appointments Committee vetting process.
Cudjoe described the move as a necessary step to uphold the integrity of parliamentary procedures following a directive from the Speaker of Parliament to reconstitute the committee.
In a social media post, Cudjoe commended the Minority for their stance, stating, “I think the Minority did the right thing to recuse themselves from the vetting. They are respecting the Speaker’s directive that the Appointments Committee be reconstituted immediately following the suspension of four members. That is Hon. Alexander Kwamena Afenyo-Markin’s mark of leadership I referred to.”
The decision to recuse themselves came after a heated dispute between Ranking Member Alexander Afenyo-Markin and Committee Chairman Bernard Ahiafor during the vetting of Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, the nominee for Foreign Affairs Minister. The clash centered on a directive from the Speaker to reconstitute the committee, which had been embroiled in chaos during a previous session.
Afenyo-Markin argued that the Speaker’s decision raised questions about the committee’s quorum and the legitimacy of the proceedings. “The Speaker has issued a directive, and until there is clarity on its implications, we cannot proceed as though nothing has happened,” he asserted, calling for the vetting to be suspended until the matter was resolved.
However, Mahama Ayariga, the Majority Leader, dismissed these concerns, insisting that the directive did not affect the committee’s quorum. “This directive does not affect our quorum in any way,” Ayariga countered, reinforcing the NDC’s position that the session could continue without disruption.
Committee Chairman Bernard Ahiafor sided with the Majority, further escalating tensions. He suggested that Minority members uncomfortable with the directive were free to leave, stating, “If you have issues with the directive, you are at liberty to leave.” This remark drew sharp criticism from Afenyo-Markin, who demanded an immediate retraction.
“Mr. Chairman, withdraw that comment! If you don’t, the NPP caucus will recuse itself from this vetting process,” Afenyo-Markin declared, making it clear that the Minority would not participate under such conditions. Despite the demand, Ahiafor refused to back down, interpreting Afenyo-Markin’s response as an indication that the NPP caucus intended to withdraw from the session.
The dispute highlights broader concerns about the fairness and transparency of parliamentary processes, particularly in cases where political tensions run high. The Speaker’s decision to reconstitute the committee, while aimed at restoring order, has sparked accusations of procedural overreach and bias.
For the Minority, the decision to recuse themselves was not merely about quorum but about upholding the integrity of parliamentary procedures and ensuring that due process is followed. Afenyo-Markin’s insistence on suspending the session reflects a commitment to maintaining checks and balances within Parliament, where Majority dominance often sidelines dissenting views.
On the other hand, the Majority’s determination to proceed underscores their confidence in the legitimacy of the Speaker’s directive and their commitment to advancing the government’s agenda. However, their refusal to address the Minority’s concerns risks deepening the partisan divide and undermining public trust in the institution.
This latest clash is a microcosm of the challenges facing Ghana’s parliamentary democracy, where political polarization often overshadows the pursuit of national interest. As the vetting of Ablakwa hangs in the balance, the incident serves as a stark reminder of the need for greater dialogue, compromise, and respect for procedural norms in Parliament.
Franklin Cudjoe’s support for the Minority’s decision underscores the importance of upholding principles of fairness and accountability in governance. For now, the standoff remains unresolved, leaving the fate of the vetting process uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the credibility of Ghana’s democratic institutions depends on their ability to navigate such disputes with transparency, integrity, and a commitment to the rule of law. Until then, the echoes of this heated exchange will continue to reverberate, casting a shadow over the halls of Parliament.
