Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare, a prominent legal scholar and Democracy and Development Fellow at CDD-Ghana, has sharply criticised the Minority in Parliament for boycotting the vetting of Chief Justice nominee Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, describing the action as unproductive, strategically misguided, and a dereliction of constitutional duty.
The Minority caucus staged a walkout during the vetting process held yesterday, insisting the nomination was improper and politically motivated. However, Professor Asare argued that while boycotts have historically served as powerful tools of resistance, this particular decision fell short of meeting the standard of a meaningful or principled protest.
Drawing on the example of the 1948 Accra Boycott organised by Nii Kwabena Bonne II, he noted that successful boycotts combine purpose, public mobilisation, and moral force — qualities he believes were lacking in the Minority’s action.
“That was a boycott with purpose — one that combined public participation, moral clarity, and strategic pressure,” he said of the 1948 protest, contrasting it with the recent parliamentary walkout. For him, democratic processes, particularly those enshrined in the Constitution, demand engagement rather than retreat.
“Some boycotts drain energy without yielding results, especially when they are used against functioning democratic processes that depend on participation, not withdrawal”.
Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare
Professor Asare outlined ten critical failings he believes the Minority committed by refusing to participate in the vetting. First, he argued that the caucus “silenced itself,” explaining that vetting sessions serve as the constitutional forum for demanding answers directly from nominees.
Walking out, he said, meant surrendering the opportunity to seek accountability. “Answers cannot be obtained from outside the committee room,” he noted.
He further criticised the Minority for removing itself from the historical record. Parliamentary vetting procedures are transcribed for posterity, and he said future generations would find only a void where the Minority’s contributions should have been. “The Minority’s absence leaves only a blank space in the national record,” he said, insisting that such absences diminish legislative integrity.
Power of the Question
Another key failure, according to Professor Asare, was that the caucus forfeited the “power of the question.” A single incisive question, he argued, can illuminate issues better than a litany of press statements.
By refusing to engage, Professor Asare argued that the Minority lost its ability to shape the public and legal discourse on the nominee’s suitability for the nation’s highest judicial office.
He also contended that the boycott inadvertently strengthened what the caucus sought to resist. The vetting process continued unimpeded, with the Majority taking full control of the proceedings. “In politics, vacuums are quickly filled, usually by those one seeks to restrain,” he cautioned, describing the Minority’s absence as a political miscalculation.
Professor Asare added that by choosing to walk out, the caucus “lost the moral high ground.” He argued that constructive engagement, even under protest, demonstrates institutional maturity and moral courage. The boycott, he said, appeared “petulant rather than principled,” weakening the caucus’s credibility in the eyes of the public.
He described the boycott as a waste of one of Parliament’s most powerful constitutional privileges — the ability to interrogate a nominee for an office as consequential as Chief Justice. Such opportunities, he said, are rare and, once lost, cannot be reclaimed. This, he warned, undermined Parliament’s broader oversight responsibilities.
“Checks and balances work only when both sides show up. The Minority’s absence turned oversight into oversight failure.”
Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare
Minority at a Disadvantage
By sitting out the vetting, the Minority also allowed the Majority to control the narrative, Professor Asare argued, adding that the public heard only one set of questions, one tone of scrutiny, and one direction of engagement. “The Minority’s perspective vanished from the airwaves and the record,” he said, emphasising the long-term implications for public understanding.
He maintained that the boycott reduced serious parliamentary work to mere symbolism. While such gestures may attract headlines in the moment, he said, they rarely leave a substantive impact.
“Substance resides in the debate transcript, not in the empty chair,” he observed. Finally, he cautioned that the Minority risked alienating the voters who elected them to represent and speak for them in Parliament. “Constituents expect presence, diligence, and voice — not absence, neglect, and silence,” he said.
Summarizing his critique, Professor Asare said that boycotts can indeed be noble when used to resist oppression or demand justice. But when deployed to avoid engagement in a legitimate constitutional process, they amount to “symbolic sulks” that weaken democratic accountability.
“The Chief Justice was still vetted. He excelled. He’d be confirmed and sworn in. The Minority will still have to work with him, ” he said. He concluded with a reminder that democracy functions best when leaders “show up, speak up, and stand firm — not when they stay away.”
READ ALSO: Ghana’s Economic Recovery, Born Out of Discipline – BOG Governor
