“The vetting of ministerial appointment should be redone well, how can one person ask about 100 questions – Ebenezer Akuoko Frimpong, Former DCE of Sekyere Central
Ebenezer Akuoko Frimpong, the former District Chief Executive (DCE) of Sekyere Central, has shed light on the need for a more thorough and comprehensive vetting procedure.
Frimpong’s remarks center on the flawed nature of ministerial vetting, emphasizing that the process should be redone properly. He specifically highlights the absurdity of a single individual asking as many as 100 questions during a vetting session, which he argues reflects poorly on the seriousness and efficiency of the process.
Ministerial vetting serves as a crucial mechanism to ensure that those appointed to ministerial positions possess the requisite skills, qualifications, experience, and integrity to perform effectively in their roles. These appointments are not only about assessing an individual’s knowledge of the portfolio they are about to oversee but also about gauging their moral and ethical standing, leadership abilities, and overall commitment to the welfare of the nation.
In Ghana, the vetting process is conducted by Parliament, where nominees are required to respond to questions posed by Members of Parliament (MPs). This session is expected to be a rigorous and detailed evaluation of the nominee’s fitness for the role. It serves to demonstrate the nominee’s ability to fulfill their responsibilities, whether it’s in the area of education, health, finance, or any other ministry.
Speaking on Kessben Maakye with KOD, Frimpong raised concerns about the current vetting process, particularly the issue of one person asking up to 100 questions. While it is important for MPs to ask a wide array of questions to probe a nominee’s competence, there is a fine balance between being thorough and being unnecessarily repetitive. Frimpong argues that such an overwhelming volume of questions may not provide the clarity needed to assess the nominee effectively. Instead, it could be seen as a tactic to overwhelm the individual, rendering the entire process less meaningful.
Frimpong’s remarks suggest that the vetting process has become more about political theater and less about genuine scrutiny. He calls for a system where the questions asked are relevant, precise, and geared toward evaluating the nominee’s qualifications for the specific ministerial role, rather than simply overwhelming them with a barrage of questions. This, he believes, would lead to a more transparent and efficient vetting process.
Frimpong’s call for the vetting process to be “redone well” implies a need for structural reforms in the way ministerial vetting is conducted. He advocates for a more balanced approach—one that focuses on the quality of questions asked, rather than the sheer quantity. The aim, according to Frimpong, should be to conduct a meaningful vetting session where the nominee’s qualifications, skills, and track record are properly examined, allowing for an informed decision.
Frimpong’s point also raises the issue of transparency in the vetting process. In many cases, nominees who are politically aligned with those in power may receive more lenient scrutiny, leading to concerns about favoritism or cronyism. A well-conducted and transparent vetting process, on the other hand, would ensure that all nominees are held to the same high standards, regardless of their political connections.
The challenge, however, lies in finding the right balance between scrutiny and efficiency. On the one hand, thorough vetting is necessary to ensure that only qualified and competent individuals are appointed to key positions. On the other hand, an overly lengthy and cumbersome process could be counterproductive, as it may lead to delays in the formation of a fully functioning government and cause unnecessary political friction.
WATCH VIDEO BELOW:
