Mussa Dankwah, Executive Director of Global InfoAnalytics, has weighed in on the recent vetting process of Minister-designates by the Vetting Committee of Parliament.

He emphasized the importance of asking tough, probing questions during the vetting process, noting that such questions, though difficult, are crucial in extracting the best responses from the nominees.

Dankwah believes that rigorous questioning helps ensure that the most qualified individuals are appointed to key government positions, ultimately benefiting the country’s governance and decision-making processes.

“The majority members on the committee should not just keep quiet and allow the minority to be doing the talking.
“It makes it look like nothing has changed. Same old politics, where the minority probes while the majority shields. It does not bring the best out of the nominee”.
Mussa Dankwah

Dankwah expressed disappointment that only 4 out of the 27 questions posed during the vetting of Minister-designates were raised by members from the majority side of Parliament.

He pointed out that such a limited contribution from the majority undermines the robustness of the vetting process.

Dankwah emphasized that, even if there is an intention by the majority to manipulate or bypass critical questioning, they should be informed beforehand about the types of questions to expect, allowing them to adequately prepare their nominees.

This, he argued, would foster a more transparent and accountable process, ensuring that all nominees are thoroughly vetted and that the public can trust the integrity of the outcomes.

Dankwah expressed his belief that Ghanaians are not looking for a rubber-stamp process when it comes to the vetting of ministerial nominees.

He argued that the role of Parliament is not merely to approve nominees blindly, but to critically assess their qualifications and suitability for the roles they are proposed to fill.

Dankwah added that, in some cases, rejecting individuals who appear unqualified or incapable during the vetting process can assist the president in making better choices.

By rejecting unsuitable candidates, Parliament helps ensure that only competent individuals are entrusted with key positions, which ultimately benefits the country’s governance and the success of the administration.

Dankwah Stresses the Need for Competent Ministers

Furthermore, Mussa Dankwah emphasized that Ghana cannot afford to have mediocre ministers hold office.

He stressed that allowing subpar candidates to pass through the vetting process unchecked would undermine the country’s progress and governance.

According to Dankwah, it is crucial for Parliament to uphold high standards during the vetting process, as this sends a clear and strong message to President John Dramani Mahama about the seriousness of the situation.

He noted that by rejecting unsuitable nominees, Parliament would demonstrate its commitment to ensuring that only the most qualified and capable individuals are appointed to positions of power.

According to Dankwah, this will reinforce the stance that the country is focused on real, effective leadership and meaningful governance.

“Apology to Hawa Koomson but her performance at the vetting was there for everyone to see but she was passed with a super majority”.
Mussa Dankwah

Moreover, Prof. Ransford Gyampo also lent his voice to the call, urging the NDC majority in Parliament to make substantial and meaningful contributions during the vetting process.

He emphasized that, as the party in power, it is crucial for them to actively engage in the scrutiny of ministerial nominees and not merely passively endorse them.

“Dear Bernard Ahiafor, in as much as you must guard against what Aristotle calls Tyranny of Majoritarianism’, you must be firm in asserting your authority.”
Prof. Ransford Gyampo

Gyampo emphasized that Hon. Alexander Afenyo-Markin, in his role as Vice Chairman of the Vetting Committee, should not be allowed to dominate the discussions and proceedings.

He expressed concern that Afenyo-Markin’s presence in the committee could overshadow the role of the Chairman, Bernard Ahiafor, undermining the balance of power and authority that is crucial for the fair execution of the vetting process. “You [Bernard Ahiafor] are the Chair, Please!”