The recent parliamentary vetting process in Ghana has drawn sharp criticism, particularly from veteran journalist Kwesi Pratt Junior, who has taken strong exception to the conduct of the Minority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin. Pratt has characterized Afenyo-Markin’s actions during the vetting as “comedic” and “preposterous,” arguing that they deviate significantly from the intended purpose of the vetting process. He has expressed deep concern about what he perceives as a trivialization of a crucial constitutional function, turning a serious assessment of ministerial nominees into a spectacle of irrelevant inquiries and theatrics.
Pratt specifically cited Afenyo-Markin’s request for Education Minister-designate, Haruna Iddrisu, to demonstrate his fluency in Twi as a glaring example of this inappropriate behavior. He pointed out the established parliamentary standing orders that dictate the language to be used in parliamentary proceedings, including committee sittings. By requesting Iddrisu to speak Twi, Afenyo-Markin not only disregarded these established rules but also, according to Pratt, fundamentally misunderstood the purpose of the vetting process. The vetting committee, Pratt argued, is not a language proficiency test; its mandate is to assess a nominee’s qualifications and intellectual capacity to serve as a minister, not their linguistic abilities.
Furthermore, Pratt expressed incredulity at the line of questioning directed towards another nominee, who was asked about their church attendance and subsequently asked to sing a hymn. He questioned the relevance of such inquiries to the nominee’s suitability for a ministerial position. The purpose of the vetting, he reiterated, is to scrutinize a candidate’s capacity to perform the duties of their designated ministry, not to gauge their religious practices or musical talents. The vetting committee, in Pratt’s view, should focus on evaluating the nominees’ policy understanding, their grasp of the challenges facing the ministry they are nominated for, and their proposed strategies to address those challenges, not their singing abilities or church attendance.
Pratt’s critique goes beyond simply highlighting these specific incidents; it underscores a broader concern about the perceived degradation of the vetting process. He argued that these seemingly innocuous inquiries contribute to a larger pattern of trivializing a crucial mechanism for ensuring accountability and transparency in government. By diverting attention towards irrelevant matters, the vetting committee risks failing in its primary duty of thoroughly scrutinizing the nominees’ suitability for their ministerial roles. This, in turn, undermines the integrity of the appointment process and potentially compromises the effectiveness of the government.
Pratt’s call for a return to the core principles of the vetting process reflects a concern shared by many observers of Ghanaian politics. The vetting process, ideally, should serve as a robust platform for assessing the nominees’ qualifications, policy positions, and potential conflicts of interest. It should provide an opportunity for the public to gain insight into the individuals who will be entrusted with leading key government ministries. By straying from this core mandate, the vetting process risks becoming a superficial exercise that fails to adequately scrutinize the nominees and inform the public.
In essence, Pratt’s criticism serves as a call for a more serious and substantive approach to the vetting process. He advocates for a return to the core principles of scrutiny, accountability, and transparency, urging the vetting committee to avoid irrelevant distractions and focus on assessing the nominees’ genuine suitability for their designated roles. He argues that the current trend of trivializing the process undermines the integrity of ministerial appointments and, ultimately, the effectiveness of the government. His critique underscores the importance of a rigorous and focused vetting process in ensuring that qualified and capable individuals are appointed to ministerial positions, thereby upholding the principles of good governance and public accountability.
