Let’s get it right with the vetting
We have had occasion to comment, once again, on the ongoing vetting of ministerial nominees by the Appointments Committee of Parliament because we believe the process needs a re-look.
Advertisement
The Daily Graphic has expressed its belief in the relevance of the vetting, as it serves to prepare the nominees, while it affords Ghanaians the opportunity to know the capabilities of the men and women who will be in government.
However, we see some issues that we believe do not augur well for the entire process being repeated each day as the vetting wears on.
We believe that the process must be inquisitorial, but we find that sometimes it is reduced to ‘showmanship’ by the committee members and the nominees.
As we have indicated, the vetting is akin to a job interview and so we believe it must be geared towards eliciting answers from the nominees to show that they are, indeed, qualified and ready to hold the portfolios for which they have been nominated by the President.
The nominees are not supposed to be emotional about the questions posed to them, neither are they to adopt a confrontational or arrogant posture when they appear before the committee.
We must know that it is a constitutional imperative that the committee is adhering to by vetting the nominees.
Article 78 (1) of the Constitution provides that nominees by the President for ministerial appointments have to be approved by Parliament before they can act or hold themselves out as ministers or deputy ministers of state.
Although the Constitution does not indicate how the House should give approval to the President’s nominees, the Standing Order of Parliament makes the Appointments Committee, made up of the First Deputy Speaker as chairman and not more than 25 other members from both sides of the House, responsible for the exercise.
Some people believe that the exercise is a waste of time and our resources, as they believe none of the nominees will be rejected by the committee.
But, with the benefit of history, we wish to state that there have ever been occasions when nominees have not been passed because they did not meet the requirements.
A clear example was when Mr Ekwow Spio-Garbrah failed to make it past the vetting to become the first Information Minister in the Rawlings regime when the country returned to multi-party democracy in 1993.
The question of whether Mr Owuraku Amofa of the Egle Party was a registered voter drew a no, which failed him because it is required by the Constitution that to qualify for a ministerial portfolio, one must be a registered voter.
While we believe that the work of the committee is in the interest of the country, we are of the view that dealing with the essentials, such as whether the nominees are qualified in the first place and if by its assessment they are able to handle the various ministries, must suffice, instead of the sometimes repetitive and long-winding questions that make the process boring.
The vetting process can be made more exciting if it is kept short, partisanship is taken away from it and getting the best of ministers for the nation is made the key objective of the exercise.
We also believe that Parliament, as an institution, should be able to do some public engagement to get members of the public to appreciate the work of the Appointments Committee and also ensure that nominees do not bring along droves of sympathisers to disrupt the vetting.
