In the vetting process of ministerial nominees by President John Mahama in Ghana, a recurring theme has been the apparent irrelevance of many questions posed by members of the minority in Parliament. This process, which is meant to assess the suitability, competence, and integrity of nominees, frequently deviates into what can be seen as tangential or even trivial inquiries. Here’s why these questions often lack relevance and why they continue to be asked:
Why Vetting Of Ministers Are Carried Out/ Its Relevance Issue:
The primary purpose of vetting is to evaluate whether nominees possess the necessary qualifications, experience, and vision to handle the responsibilities of their potential roles. However, the questioning often shifts from professional competence to personal or political probing. This can distract from the real issues at hand, such as the nominee’s policy insights, past performance in similar or related roles, or their plans for their prospective ministry.
Why are Minority Members Part of The Committee?
Political Strategy: The minority often uses the vetting platform to score political points or to challenge the government’s decisions.
By asking seemingly irrelevant questions, they can put nominees on the spot, potentially embarrassing them or highlighting perceived weaknesses in the government’s choices.
Media Attention: Sensational or unexpected questions garner media coverage. This can serve to keep the opposition in the public eye, framing the narrative around the government’s capability or the nominees’ suitability.
Public Perception: Sometimes, these questions aim to appeal to public sentiment or address cultural or social issues, even if they’re not directly linked to the job at hand. This can influence voter perception ahead of elections or public discourse on governance.
Examples of Irrelevant Questions:
Singing Hymns: A notable example from recent vettings involved a minister-designate being asked to sing Methodist hymns. This question, while possibly intended to assess cultural or community engagement, has no direct bearing on the administrative or policy-making capabilities required for a ministerial role.
Personal Lifestyle: Questions have sometimes veered into the personal lives of nominees, such as their hobbies or family life, which do not contribute to understanding their professional capabilities. This can make the vetting process seem more like a public interview than a professional evaluation.
Political Allegiance: Questions regarding past political affiliations or statements from nominees that do not relate to the current role’s demands have been common. For instance, asking a nominee for a technical position about their stance on unrelated political issues or past party disputes.
Impact and Consequences:
Distraction from Core Issues: Such questions can distract from discussing critical issues like economic policy, infrastructure development, or public service improvement, which are central to the roles nominees are being vetted for.
Waste of Time: The focus on irrelevant queries can make the vetting process inefficient, potentially leading to public frustration over the perceived unseriousness of the proceedings.
Missed Opportunity: By not focusing on relevant queries, Parliament might miss opportunities to truly gauge nominees’ performance in their roles, which could impact governance quality.
READ: Read All About Haruna Iddrisu, The Incoming Minister of Education
While the vetting of ministerial appointees is crucial for democratic accountability, the process should ideally focus on substantive issues related to governance, policy, and administrative competence. The frequent injection of irrelevant questions by the minority in Parliament might serve political or media-driven agendas but at the cost of diluting the vetting’s primary purpose. As Ghana moves forward, enhancing the relevance of these sessions could lead to better governance by ensuring that those in power are thoroughly evaluated on their merit and capability to serve the nation effectively.