The Majority Chief Whip, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, has refuted claims he engaged in a scuffle during the disturbance that characterised the vetting of some ministerial nominees in Parliament about two weeks ago.

He claimed that his role as a chief whip was to help restore calm for the vetting of nominees to continue so as to expedite government business.

Testifying at the Adhoc Committee hearing probing the disturbances which took place on the night of January 30, this year, in Accra yesterday, Mr Dafeamekpor explained the reason behind his confrontation with the Member of Parliament (NPP) for the Gushegu Constituency, Mr Alhassan Tampuli Sulemana.

“I did not fight Tampuli.

They were not interested in getting any business done that day. Perhaps, because I had come to take Charles Asiedu out of his grip.

“He did not like the idea; eventually he smiled at me and let go of the Fugu. So, it was not a fight at all,” he told the committee. 

Beneficiary

The Majority Chief Whip, who is the MP for South Dayi (NDC), also informed the committee that his side was a beneficiary of the vetting process, hence he could not have engaged in any fight to further jeopardise the process.

“I was the beneficiary of the proceedings, so to speak. It's my ministers or nominees who were being processed as it were.

“If I had encouraged my part of the committee to engage in the scuffle, I'm sure the events recounted would have been more terrible,” he said.

Mr Dafeamekpor further said his focus was to get the nominees vetted as soon as possible, adding that the change in the position of the Minority that night was unexpected, since both sides had agreed to vet the nominee for Health, Kwabena Mintah Akandoh at the pre-committee sitting.

He added that the Minority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, allegedly led the charge by saying the vetting would not continue.

Mr Dafeamekpor, however, described the Minority leader’s behaviour as unacceptable. 

Recommendations

The Majority Chief Whip recommended to the committee that going forward, the Appointments Committee needs to observe strict protocols, including voting on decisions at pre-committee sittings to determine the business of the day.

“Protocols, practices and conventions exist for the caucuses that constitute committees.

If you disagree with a decision of a committee, it must always be reduced to voting so that somebody doesn't come back later in the day to say we agreed we'll do this and you are doing the other.

“Once we agree on a certain position, let us vote. It becomes the decision of the committee not a single person's decision,” he added.

The Majority Chief Whip further suggested that the committee must insist on having specific number of invites of nominees during vetting to avoid overcrowding in the conference room during vetting.  

He said although the present system suggests that every nominee comes with 10 invites, there were situations where nominees came with more than the required number.

Mr Dafeamekpor also opined that members of the committee must be given limited time and number of questions to ask each nominee during the vetting process.