The nomination process, as outlined in Ghana's constitutional and judicial framework, involves multiple layers of scrutiny. After the announcement by the Office of the President, the list of nominees will be reviewed by the Judicial Council. This body will assess their qualifications, judicial temperament, integrity, and ability to contribute to the work of the Supreme Court. Upon satisfying the Council’s vetting requirements, the names will then be forwarded to Parliament for further examination and confirmation. This multi-step process ensures transparency, fairness, and public trust in the selection of judges to serve on the nation’s apex court. However, the nomination has not gone without commentary. Concerns have been raised by some members of Parliament, particularly from the Minority side, who argue that the process of vetting Supreme Court nominees lacks clear legislative backing and could potentially undermine judicial independence.

This recent wave of nominations has also reignited debate around the size and structure of Ghana’s Supreme Court. Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin and other legal analysts have previously highlighted the need for legislation to cap the number of Supreme Court justices, arguing that an ever-expanding bench could complicate judicial efficiency and coherence in legal reasoning. Additionally, some Ghanaians are closely watching the process to ensure that appointments are based on merit rather than political considerations. Nonetheless, the nominees themselves come with commendable track records and extensive judicial experience, having served the judiciary for years at the appellate level. As the country awaits Parliament’s approval, this development underscores the ongoing evolution of Ghana’s judiciary and raises broader questions about how best to balance legal expertise, political neutrality, and institutional accountability at the highest levels of the court system.