10 reasons why the NPP’s boycott of CJ vetting was ‘not useful’ – Kwaku Azar explains

Renowned US-based Ghanaian lawyer and legal scholar, Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare, popularly known as Kwaku Azar, has criticised the decision by the Minority caucus in Parliament to boycott the vetting of Chief Justice nominee, Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie.

The Minority, led by Alexander Afenyo-Markin, staged a walkout during the vetting, claiming that the process breached constitutional provisions due to pending court cases challenging the nomination filed by former Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkonoo.

However, Kwaku Azar argued that while boycotts can awaken consciences, galvanise the public, and expose injustice, the Minority’s decision was not useful.

ALSO READ: Why I gave Ataa Ayi 70 years instead of 30 – Chief Justice nominee explains

In a Facebook post on Tuesday, November 11, he outlined ten (10) reasons for his stance:

10 reasons why the NPP’s boycott of CJ vetting was ‘not useful’

1. The Minority Silenced Itself

Vetting is the constitutional forum for asking questions and demanding answers. By walking out, the Minority silenced itself. Answers cannot be obtained from outside the committee room.

2. The Minority Lost Its Place in the Record:

Parliamentary vetting is transcribed for history. Future generations will read who asked what and who stood for what. The Minority’s absence leaves a blank space in the national record.

ALSO READ: Why 2025 Ranks as One of the Hottest Years in Human History Revealed – All You Must Know

3. The Minority Forfeited the Power of the Question

A single pointed question can reveal more than a week of press statements. By boycotting, the Minority surrendered that power and the opportunity to frame the moral and legal debate.

4. The Minority Strengthened What It Opposed

The process did not stop because of their absence. It continued unchallenged. In politics, vacuums are quickly filled, usually by those one seeks to restrain.

ALSO READ: Minority rejects CJ nominee Justice Baffoe-Bonnie, stages walkout during vetting

5. The Minority Lost the Moral High Ground

Engagement is harder but nobler than exit. The boycott appeared petulant rather than principled, forfeiting the moral authority that comes from constructive participation.

6. The Minority Wasted a Constitutional Privilege

Few democratic tools are as powerful as the right to question a nominee for the nation’s highest judicial office. That opportunity will not return soon, yet it was discarded.

7. The Minority Undermined Oversight

Checks and balances work only when both sides show up. The Minority’s absence turned oversight into oversight failure.

ALSO READ: CJ Vetting: NPP raises alarm over constitutional breach and conflict of interest

8. The Minority Ceded the Narrative

The vetting went on. The Majority asked the questions, the nominee answered, and the public heard one voice. The Minority’s perspective vanished from both the airwaves and the record.

9. The Minority Reduced Politics to Symbolism

Boycotts attract short-term headlines but leave no lasting impact. Substance resides in the debate transcript, not in the empty chair.

10. The Minority Forgot Who Sent Them There

Voters elected the caucus to speak on their behalf, not to stay away. Constituents expect presence, diligence, and voice, not absence, neglect, and silence.

ALSO READ: ‘Declare a state of emergency on galamsey now’ – NPP Youth Wing urges Pres. Mahama

Professor Kwaku Azar’s remarks sparks further debate among political observers, with many agreeing that while symbolic protests have their place, engagement remains a more effective tool in defending constitutional principles.