Vetting of SC nominee Justice Ackaah-Boafo halted over petition

A dramatic turn in Parliament

What began as a routine vetting session for a Supreme Court nominee has taken an unexpected detour in Ghana’s Parliament. The Appointments Committee was set to scrutinize the candidacy of Justice Kweku T. Ackaah-Boafo, a respected member of the Court of Appeal, when proceedings were abruptly suspended. The catalyst? A last-minute petition alleging serious misconduct and judicial bias.

The petition that stopped everything

The petition, submitted by Anthony Kwabenya Rau—a self-proclaimed “international human rights activist”—has thrown the judge’s nomination into limbo. The document, described by insiders as “explosive,” accuses Justice Ackaah-Boafo of using insulting language during a case at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA) court. Rau claims the judge referred to him dismissively as a “so-called ‘Messiah’ international Human Rights Activist” and questioned his legal standing in court.

More alarmingly, the petitioner asserts that Justice Ackaah-Boafo’s official written judgment in the matter contained personal attacks—allegations that, if proven true, could cast a long shadow over his judicial temperament.

Character assassination or accountability?

The language of the petition is unequivocally harsh, describing the nominee as “arrogant, biased, power-drunk, an abuser of human rights, and supportive of corruption.” Rau’s conclusion is blunt: confirming Justice Ackaah-Boafo to the Supreme Court would be a “disaster” for both the nation and its international image.

He also questions the nominee’s cultural alignment, alluding to his Canadian background and alleging a lack of respect for Ghanaian elders—an accusation that could resonate in a society where age and tradition command significant respect.

Political undertones and historical grievances

In addition to his courtroom experience, the petition touches on politically sensitive claims. Rau alleges that the judge refused to authorize interest payments in a case involving the New Patriotic Party (NPP) administration, prior to his elevation to the Court of Appeal by President Nana Akufo-Addo. The implication: potential political bias or influence.

Such claims risk adding a political charge to a process meant to evaluate legal competence and integrity impartially.

The Judiciary reacts

Sources close to Justice Ackaah-Boafo have responded with strong denials, calling the petition baseless and defamatory. They emphasize that the judge stands ready to appear before the Appointments Committee and clear his name.

“He is disappointed but undeterred,” a source told reporters. “He looks forward to a fair and transparent process.”

Supporters of Justice Ackaah-Boafo also point to his long-standing service and the absence of previous disciplinary actions as indicators of his judicial caliber.

Parliament’s delicate dilemma

Now, the matter lies in the hands of Speaker Alban Bagbin. Ghana’s parliamentary Standing Orders—particularly Order 99—require that any petition be assessed within 30 days to determine if it is “frivolous or vexatious.” This places Parliament in a tight spot: balancing its constitutional duty to scrutinize judicial appointments with the need to protect the independence and dignity of the bench.

It is an extraordinary moment in Ghana’s democratic oversight mechanisms—rarely has a petition delayed a vetting session for a Supreme Court nominee so dramatically.

A nation watches and waits

The controversy has stirred intense public interest, drawing attention to how judicial nominees are evaluated. It also raises questions about how accessible the petitioning process should be, and what safeguards exist to prevent its abuse.

While the nation awaits Speaker Bagbin’s guidance, one thing is certain: the decision will not only determine the fate of Justice Ackaah-Boafo but could also set a critical precedent for judicial vettings in Ghana’s Fourth Republic.

As the days tick toward Parliament’s 30-day deadline, the story remains far from over.