Bodi MP Accuses Minority of Deliberate Disruption During Vetting Process

In a tense session before a special committee on February 10, 2025, Bodi MP Sampson Ahi leveled sharp criticisms at the Minority, alleging that their actions were a calculated attempt to render the vetting process ungovernable.

Recounting the events of January 30, Mr. Ahi asserted that rather than opting for a simple walkout—a more acceptable form of protest—the Minority chose to deliberately sow chaos, effectively stalling government business.

Speaking candidly, Mr. Ahi noted, “It seems to me that this Minority group do not want to stage a walkout. But they would make sure the place becomes ungovernable and ensure that nothing can go on.” His remarks painted a picture of a faction more interested in creating disruption than in engaging in constructive debate. The MP lamented that their approach not only paralyzed proceedings but also left the chamber in a state of disarray, catching even security off guard.

Expressing concern over the implications of such behavior, Mr. Ahi stressed the need for Parliament to establish clear strategies to prevent future disruptions. “I believe that we should sit down as Parliament to try to fashion out some strategies and modalities going forward on how we will conduct business when it comes to such matters,” he suggested. His call for reform underscores a broader debate about how legislative bodies should balance dissent with the necessity of orderly proceedings.

The controversy has ignited discussions among lawmakers and observers alike, with many questioning the impact of deliberate disruptions on democratic processes. While dissent is an essential element of a healthy democracy, Mr. Ahi’s account raises serious concerns about the methods employed to express it. The chaos witnessed during the vetting process not only halted critical discussions but also highlighted vulnerabilities in the chamber’s security arrangements.

As the special committee continues its investigation into the vetting chaos, the episode serves as a stark reminder of the challenges facing modern parliamentary governance. The incident has cast a spotlight on the need for well-defined protocols to manage dissent without compromising the functionality of democratic institutions—a balance that Parliament must urgently strive to achieve.