Private legal practitioner Thaddeus Sory has raised strong concerns about Ghana’s parliamentary vetting process, describing it as disrespectful, flawed, and increasingly unfit for purpose. In a yet-to-be-aired conversation with KSM, he argued that the conduct of Parliament during recent judicial approvals has undermined not only nominees but also senior justices.
According to Mr. Sory, the fallout from the vetting process extended to Justice Gabriel Pwamang, the senior justice who chaired the committee that recommended the removal of the former Chief Justice, Gertrude Araba Sackey Torkonoo. He suggested that aspects of Justice Pwamang’s own report contributed to the controversy.
Mr. Sory also revealed that Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin was a central figure in his client’s petition for the removal of the former Chief Justice. He said a major count in the petition detailed the Minority Leader’s actions, which he described as unprecedented courtroom influence.
He alleged that Afenyo-Markin was able, within two hours, to secure a full Supreme Court panel presided over by then Chief Justice Torkonoo and obtain orders that he insisted no court within the common-law world would grant under such an application.
Beyond legal outcomes, Mr. Sory claimed that personal ties influenced judicial engagements. During proceedings, he said individuals familiar with both Afenyo-Markin and Justice Torkonoo told him the two share close connections, come from the same area, and that the Minority Leader hosted visitors during the funeral of Justice Torkonoo’s father.
He stated that had the hearing continued, he was prepared to file an objection directly against the former Chief Justice. His argument, he said, was simple: the escalating tensions in the case were happening because someone personally close to her, Afenyo-Markin, was the plaintiff.
Mr. Sory also referenced new information alleging that services within the Judicial Service are commercially linked to the Minority Leader, who he claims profits significantly from them.
He insisted that the MP’s strong public opposition to the new Chief Justice’s nomination had little to do with national interest or a minority caucus position. Rather, he believes it was a personal agenda, one sold to colleagues as a collective cause.
According to him, “the facts show he has an interest in her being there,” which is why Afenyo-Markin has been “crying louder than every other person.”
Mr. Sory used the interview to call for a complete overhaul of Parliament’s vetting culture. He argued that the Constitution calls for “prior approval,” not necessarily a full vetting spectacle. He proposed a streamlined process where Parliament reviews the nominee’s CV and background checks, resorting to vetting only when clarification is necessary.
He said that if an appointee underperforms, the appointing authority can remove them, rendering the lengthy vetting sessions unnecessary. Instead, he criticised the current system as a public spectacle that keeps citizens glued to their screens watching a process where “95% of it is a joke.”
