Don’t use vetting process to settle political scores — Governance expert
A governance expert, Dr John Osae-Kwapong, has urged members of the Appointments Committee of Parliament not to use the vetting process as a forum to settle political scores.
”Members of the vetting committee must try their utmost best to not let the worst of their political temperament overshadow the proceedings,” he stated.
This, he said, would help restore confidence in the process, ensure fairness and impartiality.
Incident
Dr Osae-Kwapong, who is also the Project Director, Democracy Project, expressed the view in an interview with the Daily Graphic following the chaotic scenes that erupted during the vetting of ministerial nominees last Thursday.
"Scenes of chaos during the vetting of ministerial nominees on Thursday night dented one of Parliament's solemn constitutional obligations," he said.
He noted that such incidents could erode trust in Parliament, citing the Afrobarometer Round 10, 2024 survey results to buttress his point.
The survey results indicated that “only 9 per cent of Ghanaians say they trust Parliament “a lot”; 82 per cent say members of Parliament “never/only sometimes” try to listen to what ordinary people have to say; and 51 per cent say “most/all of them” are involved in corruption,” he said.
Dr Osae-Kwapong, however, noted that the incident should not become the basis for questioning Parliament in the appointment process of any new administration.
“Parliament’s role is critical and when executed well it would ensure that the public gets a sense of a nominee’s suitability for office, including their technical capacity and competence,” he added.
That, he said, also allowed Parliament to diligently check the nominees.
Rules/Guide
To prevent similar occurrences in the future, Dr Osae-Kwapong recommended that the rules guiding the vetting process must be re-examined, as at the heart of the chaos was whether the vetting process needed to continue or adjourned till the next day.
“Clear rules and guidelines can help so that there are no ambiguities about routine issues such as the number of nominees to be vetted per day, the duration; the parameters of questions to be asked, etc.
This is not to suggest a highly prescriptive process, but to highlight the need for greater clarity on how the process can proceed smoothly,” he said.
He further stressed that the role of the chairman of the Appointments Committee of Parliament was important, and that whoever chaired the committee must be firm in the application of the rules.
“In doing so, the chairperson must also be fair and impartial. It is a delicate balancing act that must recognise both the political nature of the process and the constitutional imperative to properly vet a president’s appointees.