Senior Associate at Ayine & Partners, Abraham Amaliba, has argued that Ghana’s Constitution does not expressly mandate the vetting of nominees by Parliament’s Appointments Committee before their approval.
Speaking on TV3’s morning programme, New Day, on Thursday, August 28, Amaliba said there was no specific provision in the Constitution requiring the type of public vetting currently conducted by the Appointments Committee.
“There is nowhere in the Constitution that says there should be vetting,” he stated.
Amaliba made the remarks during a discussion examining whether the current vetting process before the Appointments Committee meets expected democratic standards.
According to him, the constitutional process does not necessarily require an extensive public interrogation of nominees. He argued that the relevant committee could consider the qualifications and eligibility of nominees, including whether they meet constitutional requirements for appointment, before making a decision to approve or reject them.
Amaliba’s comments come amid continuing public debate over the nature and conduct of parliamentary vetting sessions.
Critics have, over the years, questioned whether some aspects of the proceedings have become excessively partisan, with allegations that political actors sometimes use the platform to advance partisan interests or settle political scores.
The Appointments Committee, particularly during the 9th Parliament, has also attracted public criticism over incidents during some proceedings, including heated exchanges and confrontations among members.
Such incidents have raised concerns about decorum and the standards expected of Parliament, often referred to as the country’s “august House.”
Questions have also been raised about the relevance of certain questions and comments made during vetting sessions. Some observers argue that portions of the proceedings occasionally stray from issues directly related to a nominee’s competence, qualifications, integrity, and suitability for office.
The debate has renewed calls for a review of the vetting process to ensure that parliamentary scrutiny remains rigorous while maintaining professionalism, relevance, and respect for democratic institutions.
Background
Under Ghana’s constitutional framework, several high-level public appointments require parliamentary approval before nominees can assume office. The Constitution outlines the respective roles of the President and Parliament in such appointments.
Parliament’s Appointments Committee plays a central role in examining nominees and making recommendations to the House. However, Amaliba’s argument is that while parliamentary approval may be constitutionally required in specific cases, the Constitution does not expressly prescribe the detailed public vetting procedures that have evolved as part of parliamentary practice.
The comments by the legal practitioner, therefore, add to an ongoing national conversation about whether the current format of parliamentary vetting should be reformed to focus more closely on constitutional eligibility, professional competence, and the suitability of nominees for public office.
