He urged citizens to demand that their representatives work collaboratively, applying ethical conduct to create a legislative environment that prioritised the common good over political manoeuvring.

Dr Darkwa stated that the duty of representing the people came with an inherent responsibility to uphold the laws and principles that govern society.

He said that although the Minority Caucus had publicly asserted their intention not to boycott the vetting process, presenting a united front in support of due process and decorum, the abrupt change to boycott the vetting had prompted questions about the Minority’s dedication to parliamentary processes and the reliability of their commitments to the constituents they serve.

“It is crucial for citizens to discern the motivations behind such actions and to seek assurance that their leaders are genuinely acting in the public's best interests,” he stated.

Theatre

Dr Darkwa, a political scientist, said the decision to boycott raises concerns that, rather than actively participating in the legislative process, they may be engaging in political theatre, where symbolism overshadows substantive engagement.

“When mechanisms designed to maintain order are wielded amidst political rivalries, it risks transforming the legislative process into a battleground of retribution, thereby diverting attention from pressing national issues toward a climate of hostility,” he said.

He noted that a fair and effective Parliament relied on collaboration across the political spectrum and entreated all members to remain committed to principles of accountability and integrity, even amidst political strife.

“The Majority and Minority leaders must recognise that their actions send powerful messages to the public. Citizens are keenly aware of the implications of dysfunctional parliamentary relations and the potential fallout from a focus on rivalry instead of joint efforts to address the pressing challenges facing the nation,” he stated.

Minority’s boycott

Dr Osae-Kwapong said he disagreed with the Minority that the removal process of former Chief Justice, Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, was unconstitutional.

“The letter of Article 146 of the Constitution was followed throughout the process, reinforced by the nation’s highest court’s position on matters such as “in camera” hearings of the removal process.

While the process exposed major fault lines in Article 146 and generated ill feelings about the spirit of the law, it nonetheless cannot be the basis for describing the action as unconstitutional,” he stated. 

He said the appropriate remedy, then, was to fix those fault lines and strengthen the safeguards built into the process, something the framers of the Constitution might have overlooked.

“Surely, constitutional process was followed in both his appointment as acting Chief Justice and subsequent nomination for the substantive role.

Additionally, his vetting and, if approved by Parliament, will follow constitutional processes notwithstanding the minority’s boycott,” he emphasised.

Partisanship

Dr Osae-Kwapong, who is the Project Director, Democracy Project, stated that Ghana’s democracy needed strong, independent constitutional bodies.

“It is my fervent hope that we get to a place where our deep polarisation and partisan politics do not become the reason why they become weak.

And this responsibility falls squarely on our two main political parties – the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and the New Patriotic Party (NPP). 

He, however, said he shared in the minority’s position that it would have been ideal to resolve all outstanding legal and constitutional issues before proceeding with the vetting. 

Polarisation

On his part, Dr Bukari noted that the Minority Caucus’s boycott underscored the deepening polarisation in Ghana’s Parliament and the complex intersection of law, politics and institutional trust in the country, particularly under the Fourth Republic.

He said that while parliamentary boycotts were not new in Ghana’s political history, this particular incident reflected growing tensions over the balance of power among the three arms of government over the past few years.

Dr Bukari, who is the Head of the Department of Political Science at the University for Development Studies, noted that the vetting process, which should ideally be a non-partisan constitutional exercise, focuses on competence, integrity and judicial philosophy, has regrettably been overshadowed by political manoeuvring.

“The minority’s absence not only weakened parliamentary scrutiny but also signalled a worrying trend of partisanship and disturbing political developments in Ghana. 

“At the same time, the majority’s decision to proceed with the vetting despite the boycott projects a semblance of procedural legitimacy but undermines the letter and spirit of inclusivity and bipartisan consensus that should characterise such critical national decisions in our constitutional democracy,” he stated

Dialogue

Dr Bukari said the development calls for renewed political maturity and dialogue to restore faith in the country’s Parliament as a democratic institution and a law-making body.

He said Ghana’s fledgling democracy must not allow constitutional processes to be perceived through a partisan lens.