Improve procedures at vetting sittings

The country witnessed another unfortunate moment in Parliament last Thursday as members of the Appointments Committee turned their meeting into near fisticuffs.

It was at the closing stages of the ongoing vetting session well into the night, with the President’s nominee for Minister of Foreign Affairs, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, prepped up for his turn.

It turned out the Minority caucus of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) was not expecting him at the vetting on the night, having already gone through the exercise with Rashid Pelpuo, Mutala Mohammed, Sam George, Kofi Adams and others.

Unfortunately, however, the disagreement over whether or not the vetting process should go ahead with Mr Ablakwa turned chaotic, with members of the committee vandalising the meeting grounds.

The Majority Leader, Mahama Ayariga, was stunned by the development as he reached the hall hosting the vetting process and described the event as shameful of the reputation of the legislature.

We think he was charitable. It was unbecoming of a group of lawmakers who are supposed to exemplify the character of the country’s democratic process. Violent confrontation, as expressed in the vandalisation of state property and logistics aiding the work of the Appointments Committee, cannot be exemplary.

Curiously, one of Parliament’s vibrant committees has still not found a way to handle its processes and procedures in a more serene and decorous manner to remove the excesses of confusion and chaos associated with its work currently.

In a previous editorial on the work of the committee, we emphasised that walkouts, heckling, banging tables into a noisy chamber, etc. are among standout acts in Ghana’s Parliament that have mimicked some of the worst exchanges in legislatures in other jurisdictions.

We, however, think that it is time for the committee to find ways to refine its processes.

For example, Parliament should be able to agree on how much time is allotted to specific members of the committee or the number of questions a committee member is allowed to ask.

As we stated earlier, all of these can be improved in the Ghanaian parliamentary discourse. After all, what are the benefits of the disruptive process during the screening and interviewing of ministers designate?

We stated that parliamentarians have not spared a moment to remind the public that the legislature is a master of its own rules.

This has been explained to mean that Parliament has the flexibility to manage its procedures and processes as the House deems fit to achieve specific objectives.

This, we think, explains why the House waived some conventional requirements to pave the way for the quick vetting of the nominees.

For instance, it has emerged that Parliament agreed to start the vetting process within a short time upon receipt of the nominations from the Presidency.

It is important to chart different paths that produce better outcomes for the workings of the committee and the larger Parliament.

The leadership of the House should do everything possible to banish the poor image Parliament has gained recently.

The legislature, as one of the pillars of the country’s democratic experiment, deserves an enhanced profile befitting of its work and calling. Constant confusion, chaos and violence should not be a characteristic of the work of Parliament or one of its prominent committees.

Extreme partisanship should not be allowed to mar the beauty of a democratic experiment that has earned the praise of the international community.

Perhaps, the leadership could consult knowledgeable academics and other professionals to help the House adjust and refine its processes.

What happened last Thursday should not be allowed to happen again.