Private legal practitioner Thaddeus Sory has raised concerns about the credibility and usefulness of Parliament’s vetting process for Chief Justice nominees.
In an interview with KSM on The KSM Show, he argued that recent proceedings suggest the exercise has drifted from its constitutional purpose.
Sory said the process has become unnecessarily politicised and at times disrespectful to nominees.
“Apart from the disrespect to the nominee, it even went further to affect another justice, the most senior justice of the day, Justice Gabriel Pwamang, who was the chairman of the committee that recommended that the Chief Justice be removed,” he stated.
He criticised Justice Pwamang’s handling of the committee’s work, saying, “To some extent, I would blame Justice Pwamang because… his own report is the problem.”
According to him, the current form of vetting does not reflect what the Constitution prescribes.
“I think they should… They should look at this whole idea of prior approval. The Constitution didn’t say vetting. It said prior approval of Parliament,” he argued.
He suggested that Parliament adopt a streamlined approach focused on background checks and specific clarifications rather than lengthy questioning sessions aired on national television.
Sory described the current process as ineffective. “They keep all of us glued to television, and we are sitting down there and watching a process that 95% of it is a joke,” he said.
He believes nominees should be approved by acclamation where appropriate, with accountability enforced through the authority of the appointing body.
