Domelevo Criticizes Appointments Committee Vetting Process, Calls for Reform

Former Auditor-General of Ghana, Daniel Yaw Domelevo, has voiced strong criticism of the management of the Appointments Committee’s proceedings, particularly the vetting process for ministerial nominees.

Speaking during a discussion on KeyPoints on February 1, Domelevo raised concerns about the lack of structure, fairness, and transparency in the way vetting sessions are conducted, describing the current approach as flawed and politically motivated.

A central point of Domelevo’s critique was the apparent lack of time management during the vetting sessions. He questioned how some members of the committee, such as Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, were allowed unlimited time to question nominees, leading to sessions that dragged on far beyond their scheduled duration.

“If you have a vetting session scheduled for one hour, how can it extend into two or three hours for just one individual?” Domelevo asked. He argued that while discretion is sometimes necessary, it should not be abused to the detriment of the process’s efficiency and fairness.

Domelevo also expressed concern that the true purpose of vetting—assessing the competence and suitability of nominees for public office—has been overshadowed by political and personal agendas. “The essence of vetting is to evaluate the competencies of nominees to ensure they are fit for the position they are being considered for,” he said. “But what we see here is the use of vetting to settle personal scores, which is inappropriate.”

Highlighting the inconsistency in the duration of vetting sessions, Domelevo noted that some nominees were subjected to lengthy questioning, while others were approved after only a few minutes of superficial discussion. He contrasted this with international standards, which recommend at least 50 minutes of thorough vetting per nominee to ensure a robust evaluation process.

“International standards dictate that vetting should take time—at least 50 minutes per nominee. But instead, we see quick, ineffective sessions that don’t serve the public’s interest,” he lamented.

Domelevo concluded by calling for a shift in mindset among Ghana’s leaders, urging them to prioritize the integrity and purpose of the vetting process over political expediency. “The role of vetting should not be reduced to a political platform for settling scores,” he emphasized. “It should be a serious process aimed at determining whether a nominee is fit for the role they are to occupy.”

His critique adds to a growing chorus of voices calling for reforms to improve the transparency, efficiency, and fairness of Ghana’s parliamentary processes. Domelevo’s remarks underscore the need for a more structured and impartial approach to vetting, one that prioritizes the public interest and ensures that nominees are rigorously evaluated based on their qualifications and suitability for office.

As Ghana continues to grapple with challenges in its governance systems, Domelevo’s call for accountability and reform serves as a timely reminder of the importance of upholding high standards in public service. His insights highlight the urgent need for a cultural shift in how parliamentary processes are conducted, with a focus on integrity, fairness, and the common good.