Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin has accused the Clerk of the Appointments Committee of Parliament, Gifty Jiagge-Gobah, of being partisan following a heated clash between the Majority and Minority caucuses.
The incident, which erupted during the vetting of Kwabena Mintah Akandoh and Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, saw both sides fiercely disagreeing over whether to proceed with the session or reschedule it.
Speaking to journalists, Afenyo-Markin did not hold back in his criticism, directly accusing the Clerk of favoring the National Democratic Congress (NDC). According to him, the Clerk’s handling of the vetting process was biased, and he claimed that she deliberately took actions that aligned with the interests of the Minority.
“The nominees—where we have to ask them questions, we do. Nothing will stop us from asking the necessary questions. It’s not every nominee; some of their nominees spent five minutes. NDC is always up to intimidating people. They think that they must always bully,” Afenyo-Markin stated.
His frustrations with the process were evident as he continued, “We will not accept any bullying. They can call us micro-minority, they can say whatever they want to say. We have been cooperating with them. The Clerk to the Committee is a partisan clerk. She’s a typical NDC member, she agrees with them and she advertises and informs people to come. January 29, there was no agreement, no meeting, 10:00 p.m. she advertises.”
The confrontation between the two sides began when the Minority proposed rescheduling the vetting to Friday, citing concerns over the day’s proceedings. The request was, however, met with stiff resistance from the Majority, who argued that the committee must adhere to its pre-established schedule and continue with the vetting as planned. This disagreement quickly escalated into chaos, turning the conference room into a battleground of competing interests.
In an effort to halt the proceedings, some Minority members took drastic actions, disrupting the session by breaking tables and microphones. Their attempt to force a delay in the vetting process was met with strong opposition from the Majority, who stood firm in their position that the vetting should continue without any interruptions.
Despite the disorder, the Majority remained resolute, maintaining that the committee was following its laid-down procedures and that allowing disruptions could set a dangerous precedent for future vetting processes. As tensions mounted, security personnel were deployed to the scene to prevent further escalation and restore some order in the room.
The chaotic atmosphere highlighted deep-seated political divisions within the committee, with both sides accusing each other of acting in bad faith. While the Minority insisted that their concerns over procedural fairness should be considered, the Majority saw the attempt to delay the vetting as a deliberate political strategy meant to frustrate the process.
As the confrontation continued, Majority Leader Mahama Ayariga stepped in to address the situation. After assessing the disorder, he made the decision to suspend the vetting process and officially rescheduled it for Friday, January 31. His intervention brought temporary relief to the situation, but the underlying tensions remained unresolved.
Political analysts have since weighed in on the incident, with some viewing it as a reflection of the growing polarization within Ghana’s political landscape. Many argue that the Appointments Committee should serve as a forum for constructive scrutiny of nominees, rather than a stage for partisan confrontations that undermine the integrity of the vetting process.
Observers have also noted that the accusations leveled against the Clerk add another layer of complexity to the situation. If the allegations of partisanship are proven to be true, it could raise serious concerns about the neutrality of parliamentary staff and their role in legislative proceedings. On the other hand, if the accusations are unfounded, it may suggest that tensions within the committee have reached a point where even procedural decisions are viewed through a political lens.
Beyond the immediate controversy, the incident has sparked a broader discussion about the effectiveness of the Appointments Committee and whether reforms are needed to ensure that such confrontations do not continue to disrupt parliamentary processes. Some governance experts have suggested that stricter parliamentary rules should be enforced to prevent disorderly conduct during vetting sessions. Others have called for increased mediation efforts to foster cooperation between the Majority and Minority caucuses, particularly on contentious issues.
The standoff has also drawn reactions from civil society organizations, with many expressing concerns over the impact of such clashes on public confidence in Ghana’s democratic institutions. The public expects their representatives to engage in rigorous but orderly debate, and any actions that undermine this expectation risk damaging the credibility of parliamentary proceedings.
As the rescheduled vetting approaches, all eyes will be on the Appointments Committee to see whether the tensions from the previous session will carry over or if a more structured and professional approach will prevail. The ability of both sides to engage in constructive dialogue will be key in determining whether the committee can move past this confrontation and fulfill its mandate effectively.
For now, the accusations, disruptions, and unresolved tensions serve as a reminder of the challenges facing Ghana’s parliamentary democracy. While political differences are natural in any democracy, how they are managed will determine the strength and credibility of the country’s institutions.
Whether the upcoming session will proceed without further incident or devolve into another round of clashes remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the events of the past session have left a lasting impression on both political observers and the Ghanaian public.
