Make vetting process less chaotic

The vetting of ministerial nominees under the presidency of John Dramani Mahama’s second term kicked off with much drama in Parliament on Monday, January 13, 2025.

From Finance Minister designate, Dr Casiel Ato Forson, to Energy and Green Transition Minister designate, John Abdulai Jinapor, to the Attorney-General and Justice Minister designate, Dr Dominic Ayeni, the vetting process produced a combination of intelligence, finesse, hands-on understanding of the technical issues of the respective sectors, articulation, engaging debates, heckling, and sometimes chaotic moments.

While the large part of the separate vetting of the three nominees, constituting the first batch of ministerial nominees, produced eye-opening revelations in the different sectors, government intentions and possible competences of the nominees, the many cases of disagreements and confrontations were markedly the low points of the entire schedule.

The scenario persisted and intensified when the Appointments Committee sat to vet Governs Kwame Agbodza, the President’s nominee for the Ministry of Roads and Highways.

The open disagreements over procedure, process, line of questioning, subject of relevance to the committee, and so on have unfortunately made the event chaotic.

It is not as if this is alien to Ghana’s Parliament; however, in recent times, it has become more of the norm than the exception.

Walkouts, heckling, banging tables into a noisy chamber, mounting of chairs and tables, and chewing of ballot papers in a poll among parliamentarians are among standout acts in Ghana’s Parliament that have mimicked some of the worst exchanges in legislatures in other jurisdictions.

However, all of these can be improved in the Ghanaian parliamentary discourse. After all, what are the benefits of the disruptive process during the screening and interviewing of ministers designate?

Parliamentarians have not spared a moment to remind the public that the legislature is a master of its own rules.

This has been explained to mean that Parliament has the flexibility to manage its procedures and processes as the House deems fit to achieve specific objectives.

Perhaps, this explains why the House waived some conventional requirements to pave the way for the quick vetting of the nominees.

For instance, it has emerged that Parliament agreed to start the vetting process within a short time upon receipt of the nominations from the Presidency.

Those waivers were concessions supposedly made in good faith, particularly by the Minority to foster a favourable environment for governance.

It was pleasing to hear the Minority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, allude to this in one of his interventions during the vetting of Dr Forson.

It was a message intended to demonstrate the Minority’s willingness to support the Majority to manage Parliament.

Unfortunately, however, beyond these fine gestures, the exchanges have been poor for the optics and non-exemplary to the generality of society.

The interjections, screams, spontaneous chatter and virtual disorder have distracted from the quality of personalities who occupy the respected office of parliamentarians.

It is unacceptable to yield to the excuse that chaos is commonplace in legislative proceedings.

It is unacceptable that the least of issues should drag the nation behind in very simple matters.

The culture, we find it unpleasant to admit, is becoming entrenched in Ghana’s legislature, with the finesse exhibited by some of the members in the past now a distant memory.

Parliamentary engagement should be about finding the best way to serve the country.

It is about employing the relevant arsenal at the disposal of Members of Parliament, including their numbers, arguments or their Standing Orders, to serve the interests of the state.

What has happened sometimes is pettiness expressed in extreme partisanship that holds no reward, whether politically or morally.

It is our opinion that both sides of the vetting committee have already shown good intentions through negotiations that resulted in the waiver of conventional processes and the adoption of new measures to entertain even non-members of the committee at the vetting sittings.

The trivial things that divide them should not be amplified publicly in a manner that disparages the entire legislature.