The Ghanaian ministerial vetting process has become a subject of intense scrutiny and criticism, with veteran journalist Kwesi Pratt at the forefront of those questioning its efficacy and seriousness. Pratt argues that the Appointments Committee, responsible for vetting ministerial nominees, has deviated from its core mandate of assessing competence and suitability for public office, instead indulging in frivolous and irrelevant lines of questioning that trivialize the entire process. He points to several instances where the questions posed to nominees have ranged from the absurd to the outright comical, raising serious concerns about the committee’s understanding of its role and responsibilities.
One of the most glaring examples cited by Pratt is the questioning of a nominee about his activity on TikTok, a popular social media platform. The nominee was asked whether he had posted anything on TikTok before appearing before the committee. Pratt expected the question to be related to potentially controversial or inappropriate content that might reflect on the nominee’s character or suitability for office. However, no such connection was made, leaving Pratt bewildered and questioning the relevance of the inquiry. He described the exchange as a “joke,” highlighting the disconnect between the question and the serious task of assessing a nominee’s qualifications for a ministerial position. This incident exemplifies the broader trend of trivializing the vetting process observed by Pratt.
The practice of asking nominees to perform songs adds another layer of absurdity to the proceedings. Pratt recounts instances where nominees were asked to name their favorite songs and then sing them for the committee. He expressed incredulity at this practice, questioning whether the vetting process had become a talent show rather than a serious assessment of a nominee’s suitability for public office. The trivial nature of these questions trivializes the weighty responsibility of appointing individuals to positions of power and influence. It also raises concerns about the committee’s understanding of the qualities and skills required for effective leadership in government.
The practice of asking nominees to sing hymns or the national anthem, ostensibly to ease their nerves, is another aspect of the vetting process that Pratt finds deeply problematic. He argues that the ability to handle pressure and stress is a fundamental requirement for a ministerial position, and if a nominee is so easily unnerved by the vetting process, they are likely ill-equipped to handle the demands of public office. The expectation that nominees should perform musical pieces, regardless of their relevance to the position, underscores the disconnect between the committee’s approach and the realities of ministerial responsibilities. It also raises concerns about the criteria being used to assess candidates and the seriousness with which the committee approaches its task.
Furthermore, the focus on such trivial matters detracts from the more crucial aspects of the vetting process, such as scrutinizing a nominee’s qualifications, experience, and policy positions. The time spent on inconsequential questions could be better utilized to delve into the nominee’s understanding of the challenges facing the ministry they are being considered for, their plans to address these challenges, and their ability to effectively manage the resources and personnel under their control. By prioritizing superficial inquiries, the committee risks overlooking critical information that is essential for making informed decisions about appointments.
The implications of this trend towards trivialization are far-reaching. It undermines public trust in the vetting process and raises questions about the competence of those appointed to ministerial positions. It also reinforces the perception that political appointments are based on factors other than merit and suitability, further eroding public confidence in the government. A rigorous and serious vetting process is essential for ensuring that qualified and capable individuals are appointed to positions of public trust, and the current practice in Ghana falls far short of this ideal. The concerns raised by Kwesi Pratt and others underscore the urgent need for reform to restore the credibility and effectiveness of the ministerial vetting process. The focus must shift back to assessing the substantive qualities and qualifications of nominees, rather than indulging in superficial and irrelevant inquiries that serve only to trivialize the process and undermine public trust.
