Awal Mohammed has argued that the Minority had a valid reason to demand greater scrutiny of the three Supreme Court nominees before their vetting, pointing to concerns about the conduct of people who have previously held judicial positions.

Awal said the controversy should not be reduced to whether the Minority’s walkout could stop the approval process. He said the more important question was whether the nominees deserved adequate scrutiny.

His statement is in reaction to Minority’s August 27 walkout from the Appointments Committee during the vetting of Justice Sophia Rosetta Oduokuwa Bernasko Essah, Justice Edward Amoako Asante and Anthony Forson Jnr.

The Minority, led by Alexander Afenyo-Markin, protested the timing of the exercise, arguing that the nominees were being vetted only three days after their nominations were referred to Parliament. The caucus said this breached Standing Orders and the established practice of allowing 14 days for public scrutiny.

Awal said the concerns should be taken seriously, particularly when judicial nominees have previously occupied positions where questions about their conduct could arise.

“Let’s be factual,” he said.

He cited Justice Chokonu as an example, arguing that one of the grounds raised in a petition for her removal related to a judgment she had delivered.

“You understand, these are people who have occupied positions that they may have even misconducted themselves in those positions,” Awal said on Joy Prime.

For him, the Minority’s position is therefore about creating room for questions and scrutiny rather than simply opposing the nominees.

He argued that the public should be allowed to understand the issues surrounding the nominees before Parliament proceeds with the approval process.