In a scathing critique of Ghana’s ministerial vetting process, Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare, Democracy and Development Fellow in Public Law and Justice at the Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana) has raised serious concerns about Parliament’s failure to rigorously scrutinize executive appointees.

He argued that the vetting process, which is meant to ensure transparency, competence, and accountability, has increasingly become a mere formality marred by trivialities, misplaced priorities, and procedural inefficiencies.

“Article 78(1) of the Constitution establishes a critical safeguard in our democratic governance: Ministers of State shall be appointed by the President with the prior approval of Parliament.
“The prior approval requirement is not a mere formality; it is a vital check to ensure that individuals entrusted with executive authority are competent, ethical, and capable of serving the public interest. It upholds accountability, transparency, and meritocracy.”
Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare, D&D Fellow in Public Law and Justice at the Centre for Democratic Development CDD-Ghana)

The Appointments Committee of Parliament is tasked with evaluating nominees’ qualifications, experience, integrity, and vision for public service.

However, recent vetting proceedings, he lamented, suggest that this crucial legislative function is not being handled with the seriousness it demands.

Vetting Reduced to Political Theater

Professor Asare cited several examples where the process degenerated into political theatrics rather than a substantive assessment of nominees’ suitability for office.

He noted that a nominee was asked to sing a Methodist hymn, a request that had no bearing on their competency.

Another nominee faced personal questions about his mother and emotional support, inquiries seemingly aimed at exploring his affiliations with Freemasonry rather than assessing his capability to serve the nation.

“In another glaring example, the Greater Accra Regional Minister-designate was given just two minutes to introduce herself and was dismissed without a single question. If Parliament’s role is to ensure that only the most qualified individuals assume office, how can such a perfunctory process be justified?”
Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare, D&D Fellow in Public Law and Justice at the Centre for Democratic Development CDD-Ghana)

Misplaced Priorities and Procedural Lapses

Professor Asare further criticized the Committee’s handling of procedural matters, pointing to a situation where nearly four hours were wasted debating whether the vetting process should proceed in light of an allegation made against the committee itself.

This prolonged deliberation left a nominee—who had already been sworn in—waiting in uncertainty, time that could have been better spent evaluating multiple nominees.

Parliament Appointment Com — Parliament’s Appointment Committee at its sitting

Even more concerning, he noted, was the Committee’s decision to suspend vetting altogether to address the allegation, despite clear parliamentary standing orders stating that such matters should be handled by the Committee on Privileges.

“At a time when the country faces pressing governance challenges, the vetting process should not be reduced to political theater or an exercise in perfunctory approval. The Appointments Committee must refocus on its core function: scrutinizing nominees rigorously and fairly.”
Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare, D&D Fellow in Public Law and Justice at the Centre for Democratic Development CDD-Ghana)

By allowing procedural distractions to take precedence over its core duty, Professor Asare believes Parliament is failing in its responsibility to conduct a rigorous and meaningful vetting exercise.

Why the Vetting Process Matters

Professor Asare underscored the importance of a credible vetting process, arguing that even when approval is a foregone conclusion due to the numerical composition of Parliament, the process itself remains crucial.

For him, a thorough vetting process provides a public record of a nominee’s qualifications, vision, and ethical standing. It allows citizens to hear directly from prospective ministers about their policies, priorities, and commitment to good governance.

Secondly, Professor Asare opined that if Parliament treats vetting as a mere formality, it signals to future appointees that their confirmation is guaranteed regardless of merit.

Conversely, Professor Asare noted that a serious and structured process reinforces the expectation that public office is earned through competence and integrity, not political alignment alone.

Thirdly, Professor Asare pointed out that a transparent and well-conducted vetting process reassures citizens that their leaders are selected based on ability rather than favouritism.

In his view, it also provides an opportunity for opposition members and civil society to interrogate nominees on policy positions, ensuring that they enter office with a clear mandate and public expectations.

“Vetting is not just a procedural hurdle, but is also a mechanism for setting expectations, defining responsibilities, and creating a basis for performance evaluation. It sets the stage for OMAMPAM”.
Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare, D&D Fellow in Public Law and Justice at the Centre for Democratic Development CDD-Ghana)

According to Professor Asare, even nominees with broad political support should be compelled to demonstrate their readiness to lead effectively.

He posited that ministers manage complex portfolios affecting millions of lives, and the vetting process should serve as a platform for them to articulate their plans and competence.

A Call for Structured and Rigorous Vetting

To restore credibility to the vetting process, Professor Asare called for structured guidelines that mandate a fixed number of hours for each nominee, ensuring that all appointees receive a substantive and thorough hearing.

He stressed that vetting is not a ceremonial ritual but a constitutional duty with real consequences for governance and public trust.

Ultimately, he warned that Parliament’s failure to uphold its responsibility in this regard weakens democratic accountability and undermines the very purpose of the “prior approval” requirement.

The Appointments Committee, he urged, must refocus on its core function—rigorously and fairly scrutinizing nominees to ensure that only the most capable and ethical individuals assume positions of executive authority.

In an era where governance challenges are mounting, Professor Asare’s critique serves as a clarion call for Parliament to elevate the vetting process beyond political expediency and uphold its duty to the Ghanaian people.