Petition against SC Nominee is “Frivolous and Dangerous Precedent- Minority Leader

Mr. Speaker, the Minority Leader and Hon. Member for Effutu, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, has issued a strong rebuke of a petition filed against Supreme Court nominee, Justice Kweku Tawiah Ackaah-Boafo, during proceedings of the Appointments Committee.

Describing the petition as “frivolous” and a threat to democratic integrity, Hon. Afenyo-Markin warned against the growing tendency to use unfounded allegations to smear accomplished individuals in public service.

The petition, filed by a self-acclaimed human rights advocate, Mr. Anthony Kwabenya Rau—alleged judicial misconduct by the nominee in a 2019 case.

The accusations included bias, abuse of power, and support for corruption, with inflammatory language describing the judge as “arrogant” and a “disaster” in waiting at the apex court.

The Appointments Committee, chaired by Hon. Bernard Ahiafor, dismissed the petition outright, citing Article 127(3) of the 1992 Constitution, which protects judges from legal action regarding decisions made in the exercise of their judicial function.

The petition was deemed “frivolous, vexatious, and a complete abuse of process.”

In his remarks, the Minority Leader said, “As a country, we need to veer off from trivialities and situations where we subject people’s reputation to undue public ridicule… I am happy that this committee has boldly stood up for democracy and the rule of law.”

He further referenced the ongoing suspension of the Chief Justice, cautioning that similar unproven petitions have already led to disruptive consequences.

He cited instances involving individuals such as Daniel Ofori and Yakubu Akolgo Ayanga, whose claims were also considered in proceedings that eventually led to the Chief Justice’s suspension.

The Minority Leader emphasised that entertaining such baseless petitions sets a dangerous precedent that could erode public confidence in constitutional bodies and judicial independence.

He urged members of the public to understand the constitutional mandate of Members during vetting processes, stressing that their role is not to pursue personal grievances but to uphold law, public policy, and good governance.