By Prince Ahenkorah
Individuals with exceptional and specialized knowledge in specific fields, should play a pivotal role in the vetting process of nominees appointed to various positions.
The current approach, which relies solely on Parliament to conduct vetting, is not the most effective approach for ensuring a thorough and proper evaluation of these nominees.
This is, especially important, as the public has expressed significant dissatisfaction with the current process, particularly the way the vetting committee, chaired by the First Deputy Speaker, Bernard Ahiafor, treats the nominees, likened to a parent who struggles to discipline their children, leading to frustrations and doubts regarding the integrity of the vetting process.
The purpose of the vetting process, is to allow nominees to demonstrate their expertise and qualifications for the roles they are being considered for.
By thoroughly scrutinizing them, Parliament can ensure that the individuals selected are competent and accountable to the public, once they assume their roles.
However, what is being observed with the current ministerial vetting does not reflect the standards expected for such an important process.
One concerning observation from the vetting committee is that, before most of the members begin questioning the nominees, they offer congratulations.
This gesture, while polite, inadvertently signals an outcome before the interrogation begins, undermining the integrity of the vetting process.
This, referred to as premature praise, could influence the entire process, leaving little room for unbiased assessment.
This situation, have sparked a strong reaction from various groups, including, but not limited to the African Centre for Parliamentary Affairs (ACEPA), Ghanaians on social media, and other concerned citizens.
Many believe that the conduct of lawmakers from both sides of Parliament has impeded the effectiveness of the vetting process, preventing a thorough examination of nominees on critical national issues.
The inadequate substantive, critical and in-depth questioning from the vetting committee members, has led many, who wants to hear the requisite expertise, the nominees would bring to bear in their respective ministries, leaving interested citizens in despair.
In fact, following the vetting processes from a distance, affirmations could be made that the minority leader of parliament, who doubles as a ranking committee member of the vetting committee, Alexander Afenyo -Markin, have exercised some level of statesmanship.
Even thoughsome of his questions to the nominees, not being particularly strong, his approach has, in many ways, aligned with what could be described as “the will of the people.”
His willingness to stand up for what he believes is in the best interest of the nation demonstrates the importance of leadership in such an important process.
However, such instances are exceptions, and the overall process requires further scrutiny to ensure it meets the expectations of the public.
Going forward, it is crucial to consider the involvement of experts from the specific fields related to the nominees.
For instance, individuals with relevant academic qualifications, industry experience, and expertise in the respective fields of the nominees should be invited to sit on the vetting committee.
These experts would not only ensure the nominees are qualified for the positions they are being considered for, but they would also help provide an unbiased and objective perspective, free from political influences.
Such experts could come from a variety of sectors, including academia, industry, and other relevant professional fields.
Even if Parliament continues to be the body responsible for vetting, the composition of the vetting committee should not be limited to the same set of members each time. Instead, the committee should be made up of individuals with the necessary expertise and qualifications to scrutinize the nominees effectively.
When this is done, It would prevent the current situation where people believe the vetting process is a mere formality, subject to political gamesmanship. It would also help avoid hollow allegations of bias or political manipulation that currently surround the process.
The vetting process of ministerial nominees is too important to be left solely in the hands of individuals who may not possess the requisite expertise to evaluate nominees thoroughly.