The Chairperson of Parliament’s Appointments Committee, Bernard Ahiafor, has dismissed allegations that the committee is merely a rubber stamp for approving ministerial nominees. His defense comes amid growing concerns over the speed at which the committee has vetted over 40 nominees within two weeks.
Many argue that the committee is failing to exercise its role in providing oversight. However, Ahiafor insists that the committee has adhered strictly to constitutional requirements.
“As a matter of fact, the committee is not a rubber stamp. What is it that the committee should do in vetting the nominees that the committee have not done?,” he quizzed.
According to him, Article 78 of the Constitution sets out the qualifications for a Minister of State, aligning them with those of a Member of Parliament as outlined in Article 94. He pointed out that many of the nominees were already MPs, making them constitutionally qualified for ministerial positions.
He said, “The constitution in Article 78 indicates clearly that for you to qualify to be a Minister of State, you must otherwise qualify to be a Member of Parliament. The qualification of a Member of Parliament is spelled out in Article 94. So most of the people that we have even vetted so far are all Members of Parliament. So it means that [per] constitution, they are qualified to be Ministers of State.”
He also challenged the notion that a shorter vetting duration compromises the process, emphasizing that the nominees’ competence and policy knowledge are thoroughly examined. “Their [nominees] vetting should be linked to their knowledge, policies in relation to their various fields, their competency to be able to do that. So I do not see the public judging the committee for not doing two days’ vetting for a nominee to be a rubber stamp,” Bernard Ahiafor explained.
Did the Appointments Committee Deny Ghanaians the Opportunity to Submit Memoranda?
Another major criticism is that the committee did not allow the general public to submit memoranda regarding the nominees. Critics argue that the process lacked transparency and limited public participation. Bernard Ahiafor, however, refuted this claim.
“We have always been publishing papers requesting a memoranda. The publications are there to speak for the committee. There is no single committee vetting without publication in papers requesting a memoranda. So for every single committee vetting, we did so,” he asserted.
However, he admitted that in some cases, the period for submitting memoranda was short. “If the public is complaining that for some of them the memoranda, the publication requesting for memoranda was too short, then I will agree. But in this case, we are always guided by our standing order.”
He further justified the urgency in some cases, citing two ministerial nominees who had to be vetted quickly. He said, “Two of the ministers were under some imperative to conduct the vetting so that they can travel outside the country in a designated capacity to solve a problem regarding our energy sector.”
Call for Transparency and Due Process
Despite Bernard Ahiafor’s assurances, public concern over the pace of the vetting process and the level of scrutiny remains high. Many Ghanaians believe that the vetting should be more thorough, with adequate time for public participation and deeper questioning of nominees.
With growing calls for parliamentary reforms, the debate over whether the Appointments Committee is effectively fulfilling its mandate is likely to continue.
Read also: Parliament’s Appointments Committee: The Suspensions, Chaos, and Allegations
