Chief Justice nominee Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie has recently been at the center of a two-fold public and parliamentary debate, stemming from a controversial sentencing decision made in his past and a heated vetting process for his new role. The controversy began with his explanation to Parliament’s Appointments Committee on Monday, November 10, regarding his decision to sentence notorious armed robber Ataa Ayi to 70 years in prison in his "youthful days." Justice Baffoe-Bonnie asserted that the lengthy sentence was crucial for protecting public safety and ensuring that justice adequately addressed the emotional, social, and economic harm inflicted upon victims. He explained, “If Ataa Ayi was given 30 years and came back, my family would be the first he would attack. So by the time he comes back after 70 years, I’ll be dead and gone.”

His remarks ignited a social media storm, drawing mixed reactions. While some agreed with his stern judgment, others accused him of bias. Media personality Bridget Otoo, a presidential staffer, rose to Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s defense, arguing that his comments were taken out of context. She posted on X, "He spoke in context. Beyond that, this hardened criminal killed mercilessly! He deserved death but got 70 years," and challenged critics to "form Ataa Ayi Movement" if they believed the sentence was unfair, underscoring the severe trauma Ataa Ayi’s violent crimes caused countless Ghanaians. Ataa Ayi was once Ghana’s most feared criminal, leading an armed robbery gang that terrorized Accra in the late 1990s and early 2000s, eventually being convicted on multiple counts of armed robbery after a massive police manhunt in 2005.

The vetting process itself was marred by a significant parliamentary clash. On Monday, November 10, during the vetting of Justice Baffoe-Bonnie, Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin described the nominee as a “disputed nominee.” This comment provoked an immediate objection from Majority Leader Mahama Ayariga, who deemed it politically charged and inappropriate. Afenyo-Markin, in turn, accused the Majority of attempting to suppress legitimate parliamentary scrutiny and accountability, culminating in the Minority walking out of the proceedings. This dispute is rooted in claims made by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) during the 2024 elections, suggesting that the government intended to replace Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, a development that has now materialized under the Mahama administration.

In response to the decorum breaches, Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin formally apologized to the Judiciary on Tuesday, November 11. Addressing the House, Mr. Bagbin stressed the importance of maintaining order and decorum, reminding members of Standing Orders rule 123, which cautions against imputing improper motives or using disrespectful language. He reaffirmed Parliament’s unwavering respect for the Judiciary as a co-equal arm of government under Article 125, Clause 1 of the 1992 Constitution, emphasizing its independence from control or direction. The Speaker directed the leadership of the Appointments Committee to ensure that all future proceedings uphold “the highest standards of civility, objectivity, and institutional respect,” warning that he would use “the hammer, not the gavel,” to enforce discipline moving forward.

The Minority, however, maintains that its actions were not intended to obstruct the vetting but to protest procedural lapses. Kwabena Boateng, Member of Parliament for Ejisu, clarified that the Speaker failed to present the motion on the Chief Justice’s nomination to the plenary for debate and approval before forwarding it to the Appointments Committee for vetting. The Minority argued that the vetting should have been suspended pending the outcome of court cases challenging the removal of former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo and the nomination of Justice Baffoe-Bonnie, to avoid potential embarrassment to Parliament and the state should the court’s ruling go against the approval.