Galley defends Parliament’s scheduling of Supreme Court nominees’ vetting
NDC communicator Charles Galley says the vetting of three Supreme Court nominees was already captured in Parliament’s programme of business, rejecting claims that the exercise was rushed or scheduled at the last minute.
A member of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) Communications Team in the Navrongo Central Constituency, Charles Galley, has rejected claims that Parliament rushed the vetting of three Supreme Court nominees or only decided to undertake the exercise at the last minute.
His comments follow the decision by the Minority in Parliament to boycott the vetting of the nominees, citing concerns about the procedure and the amount of time available for public scrutiny.
Speaking on the Big Mike Breakfast Show on Friday, August 28, Galley said the vetting was not an unexpected exercise but formed part of Parliament’s scheduled business.
He questioned suggestions that Parliament only became aware of the vetting when the nominees appeared before the House.
“I’m not sure that it was just yesterday when they came into the chamber that they realized that they were going to vet the three,” he said.
According to him, the vetting had already been captured in Parliament’s programme of business for the period.
He explained that the vetting of the three Supreme Court nominees had been scheduled alongside the vetting of two other nominees, indicating that the exercise was not introduced separately or without prior planning.
“It was part of the business together with the vetting of the other two,” he said.
Galley made the comments during a discussion with fellow communicator Iddrisu Amadu, a member of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Communications Team in Navrongo, on issues surrounding the vetting of the Supreme Court nominees and two other ministerial nominees appointed by President John Dramani Mahama.
While.Amadu argued that appointments to the Supreme Court require a more thorough process because of the judiciary’s constitutional significance, Galley maintained that Parliament had planned the exercise as part of its official business.
The discussion also touched on Parliament’s authority to regulate its own proceedings. Although Amadu acknowledged that Parliament is the “master of its own rules,” he maintained that parliamentary procedures must be applied in a manner that serves the public interest.
Galley’s position, however, challenged the characterisation of the vetting exercise as one that Parliament had suddenly decided to undertake.
The exchange highlighted differing perspectives on the appropriate level of scrutiny and public participation required in the appointment of Supreme Court justices.
Mike 105.3FM I Navrongo | Elizabeth Apusaama
