The Chief Justice Nominee Gertrude Torkornoo gave good answers to the questions that were asked during her vetting on Friday, May 26, a Professor at the University of Ghana Ransford Gyampo has said.
Prof Gyampo also commended the members of the Appointments Committee of Parliament for asking good questions.
He recounted that some members of the committee previously asked questions that were unsatisfactory but this time, there has been an improvement in the lines of questions that were asked the nominee.
Assessing the vetting process while speaking on the Key Points on TV3 Saturday, May 27, Prof Gyampo said “she gave good responses to the questions, great questions were posed.”
Rearing the committee members, he said “They asked great questions.”
Prof Gyampo however had reservations about the during of the vetting. In his view, it was too long.
He explained that sometimes just one question is enough to ascertain whether or not a person is intelligent.
“we should rethink the length of time we always want to use in vetting the nominee…we must not spend all the time grilling one person.”
During the vetting, Justice Torkornoo said among other things that the High Court invalidated the Assin North parliamentary election last year.
She said this after she was asked by Minority Leader Dr Cassiel Ato Forson whether the order given to Parliament by the Supreme Court to remove the name of the Assin North MP James Gyakye Quayson meant invalidation of the elections.
In answer, she said, “That invalidation was done by the high court last year.”
Bawku Central Lawmaker Mahama Ayariga had told her that the Minority side on the Appointments Committee of Parliament had a challenge in partaking in her vetting because she was part of the seven-member Justices of the Supreme Court that ordered Parliament to remove the name of Assin North Member of Parliament James Gyakye Quayson from the records without giving reasoning.
Mahama Ayariga said they had a challenge with the apex court’s refusal to give the reasoning for the orders.
Mr Ayariga said “The Minority had a reservation because you participated in the decision involving James Quayson. You did not give a reason for your judgment so as we speak, we don’t know the basis on which the court arrived at that conclusion. There is uncertainty among us as MPs knowing that our Supreme Court is Constitutional Court that should guide us as a country as to how to run public affairs.
“My answer is that I have given hundreds of judgments from High Court till now, it would be a great relief if I am assessed on my work as a whole, not the judgments of the Supreme Court.”
She added “Seven people are working together that is why very often, almost invariably every judgment that is given the reasons come out long after the orders.”
Source: 3news.com