Over the years, government appointees, including top officials, have been increasingly seen attending parliamentary vetting sessions, even when such events bear no direct relevance to their respective roles.
Some activists view this troubling trend as inappropriate, raising serious questions about professionalism, institutional efficiency, and the responsible use of public office.
Social media activist Krobea Kwabena Asante has rightly pointed out that it is time for government appointees to refrain from joining friends at these vettings when the proceedings are unrelated to their official duties.
He argued for the introduction of a new code of conduct to address this issue, emphasizing that such behaviour is detrimental to the smooth functioning of government operations. “Not good for GOGO. We need to stop that,” he asserted.
Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare, a Democracy and Development Fellow in Public Law and Justice at the Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), has added his voice to the call, underscoring the far-reaching implications of this practice.
He warned that the habitual attendance of high-ranking government officials at vetting sessions not only disrupts their official work but also raises concerns about their true priorities.
“The situation becomes even more concerning when institutions critical to governance and public trust, such as the Supreme Court, halt their work to attend these settings.”
Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare, D&D Fellow in Public Law and Justice at the Centre for Democratic Development CDD-Ghana)
This according to Professor Asare sets a dangerous precedent, where the business of the judiciary—an essential pillar of the democratic process—is placed on hold for what is essentially a political event.
Furthermore, Professor Asare argued that the presence of security leadership at these vettings, when their attendance is not directly tied to their professional mandates, only compounds the problem.
He opined that such an appearance sends a wrong message to the citizenry when those tasked with maintaining law and order or overseeing national security are more preoccupied with political vetting than their core responsibilities.
Erosion of Efficient Governance
This practice in the view of Professor Asare not only erodes the efficiency of governance but also contributes to a culture of political patronage and sycophancy.
While the vetting process is an essential democratic exercise meant to scrutinize the suitability of nominees for public office, Professor Asare strongly contested that it is not a social gathering or an opportunity for officials to show solidarity with their friends and political allies.
For him, such misplaced priorities undermine public confidence in state institutions and create an impression that governance is driven more by personal loyalties than by competence and service delivery.
In his call for reforms, Professor Asare underscored the need for a new standard to be set—one that reinforces professionalism, discipline, and respect for institutional roles.
He emphasized that public officials must be reminded that their foremost obligation is to the offices they hold and the citizens they serve.
In his view, if their presence at a vetting is not officially required, then they should remain at their posts, ensuring that government business runs uninterrupted.
Ghana’s democracy can only thrive when its institutions function effectively, without unnecessary disruptions caused by political camaraderie.
READ ALSO: Oil Volatility Pressures Markets Amid Trade, OPEC Uncertainty
