Democracy Watch Vol. 6, No. 1 March 2005 1 A Quarterly Newsletter of the Ghana Center for Democratic Development 19 Democracy Watch Volume 6, No. 1 March 2005 IN THE ANNALS OF DEMOCRACY ISSN: 0855-417X probity and ethics in high office. Public petitions and Additionally, it suggests that a growing ‘harrowing revelations’ number of Ghanaians have come to the In this issue before Appointments realization that merely winning a seat in Committee fail to stop Parliament does not make one suitable Public petitions...fail to stop ministerial nominations E for appointment as Minister. Although ministerial nominations MPs and Ministers must meet the same he 2005 Ministerial Vetting ...... Page 1 T minimum eligibility requirements E The Ghanaian government and process has highlighted fundamental stipulated in the Constitution, Ministers Togo: realpolitik or betrayal of procedural and institutional carry far greater responsibility than democratic principles weaknesses in our democratic MPs. Notably, Ministers have budget ....... Page 4 infrastructure. The vote by authority and are, by virtue of that, Appointments Committee’s to directly responsible for the use and E The Domestic Violence Bill must recommend for approval by control of public funds and resources. be tabled and passed this year Parliament, and Parliament’s This places them in an entirely different ....... Page 5 subsequent approval of, the entire first category from MPs. It is therefore batch of ministerial nominees despite E Of women and ministerial appropriate for Ghanaians to insist on appointments ...... Page 6 the failure of certain nominees to a higher standard of probity and integrity answer satisfactorily a number of for persons appointed to Ministerial E Delayed publication of NRC disturbing questions raised about their office. report: worrisome implications suitability for high office has ...... Page 9 understandably disappointed many Secondly, the fact that some of the public E People’s Assembly: publicity stunt Ghanaians. Still, we must not fail to petitions got an airing at the or deepening public access to the acknowledge the progress that this Appointments Committee, and that the President? ..... Page 11 year’s process clearly represents. nominees were subjected to more than perfunctory scrutiny by certain members E Revisiting the matter of the size Positive elements of the Committee, also suggest that at of the President’s ministerial First, the Ghanaian public deserves least some Members of the Committee team ...... Page 12 commendation for showing an are taking their committee roles exceptionally high interest in this year’s seriously. process, including taking the initiative to submit petitions and information It is worth recalling that the vetting EDITORIAL TEAM about nominees to the Appointments process was largely proforma, indeed n Baffour Agyeman-Duah Committee. This is a marked almost ceremonial, in the early years of n Audrey Gadzekpo departure from past experience, when the Fourth Republic. The process n E. Gyimah-Boadi the citizenry generally observed the assumed a measure of seriousness n H. Kwasi Prempeh proceedings as spectators at best. beginning with the second parliament, n Edem Selormey The volume of nominee-related especially after the J. H. Mensah- n Kwesi Yankah petitions submitted to the committee inspired lawsuit established the principle Democracy Watch is published with funding from suggests growing unease within the that Parliament’s power to vet the German Technical Cooperation, GTZ. body politic about the standards of Ministerial nominees extended to all Continued on next column E Continued on page 2 E CDD-Ghana ...partisans for democracy and good governance 2 nominees, including those holding over from an immediate vetting cycle causes one to wonder what sort of past administration. background checks, if any, were conducted by state investigative authorities prior to the nominations being The heightened interest shown by the media in the vetting forwarded to Parliament. One would expect at least that process is also highly commendable. This year’s certain basic facts or claims made on a nominee’s CV proceedings were broadcast live by at least one TV station. would be investigated, verified and authenticated by A widely publicised vetting process provides, among other appropriate documentation, if necessary, before the things, an opportunity for the public to dispute and nomination is passed on to Parliament. The Executive, challenge claims made by nominees before the Committee because it has at its command the state’s entire investigative and also disciplines the conduct of both nominees and apparatus, is better placed than Parliament to undertake members of the Committee by shining the public light on this sort of pre-nomination verification. That way too, the them. President would become aware of problems with particular nominations and be placed in a position to seek satisfactory Problems and concerns clarification from the nominee or else avert a public spectacle There are, however, unhealthy signs that the Committee’s by not proceeding with the nomination at all. The proceedings—like proceedings in Parliament itself—may Appointments Committee proceedings should not be the be becoming over-judicialized, as the lawyer-members place where background checks are done on nominees. import into the Committee’s proceeding rules of evidence This should be done before a person is nominated, and the and other legalisms that are designed for judicial results of such investigations should be part of the proceedings in a courtroom and not for the proceedings documentation that must be submitted to Parliament along of a non-judicial deliberative body. The drift toward with each nomination. judicialization of Parliamentary and committee proceedings is an unhealthy development for our democracy, as it “It will be particularly helpful if the concept of threatens to deliver into the hands of a class of lawyers a prior approval is clarified as an important step democratic institution and process that is supposed to be to making the vetting process more accessible accessible, in both form and substance, to the entire body to the body politic politic Parliament and its committees are not the place for ” courtroom rules of evidence. They are places for robust deliberation and debate, free from the strictures of judicial Weakness in the integrity of the process procedure. What should be paramount in the proceedings Second, the composition of the Appointments Committee of Parliament and its committees is a member’s right to undermined the integrity of the process, as some MPs who “vent” and ask questions and the public’s right to know; had themselves been nominated for Ministerial office sat not whether a certain rule of evidence or civil/criminal on the Committee and participated in the vetting of fellow procedure has been complied with. nominees. Clearly, Parliament’s Standing Orders, which govern the composition of committees, represent more of “The drift toward judicialization of parliamentary a hindrance, than an aid, in this respect. The current and committee proceedings is an unhealthy Standing Orders relating to the composition of the development for our democracy, as it threatens to Appointments Committee make sense under a constitution deliver into the hands of a class of lawyers a like the 1979 Constitution, where there was a separation democratic institution and process that is supposed of personnel between Parliament and the Executive. to be accessible, in both form and substance, to the However, under the current Constitution, which requires entire body politic” that a majority of Ministers be chosen from the House, Having said that, this year’s proceedings—though not the Parliament’s Standing Orders must ensure that committee results—have been an important step forward in making membership is structured in such a way as would enhance, Parliament and the work of its committee accessible to the not disable, the basic oversight function of committees. public The current rule that every MP must be a member of at Inadequate pre-screening least one standing committee does not work well with the Other aspects of the process raise concerns. First, it is kind of Constitution we have, where most Ministers are not clear how much pre-screening of a nominee is done simultaneously MPs. Minister-MPs, as well as MPs within the Presidency prior to a nomination being nominated for Ministerial office, should not be allowed to announced and presented to Parliament. In fact, the sheer sit or (at the very least) vote on key oversight committees, volume of the petitions filed against nominees during this like the Appointments Committee, the Public Accounts Committee, or the Finance Committee. At any rate, a Continued on next column E Continued on page 3E Democracy Watch Vol. 6, No. 1 March 2005 3 member of the Appointments Committee who has been business pursuits and improper activities. The role of the nominated to a ministerial (or deputy ministerial) position parliamentary committee that is charged with advising the should be required to recuse himself or herself for the Speaker on the grant of these permissions appears to have duration of the entire vetting process. been merely perfunctory thus far. Yet, this committee, if it took its work seriously, could become an important facility Third, the vetting process revealed deficiencies in the for the legislature to exercise oversight of the ethics not existing public officer asset declaration regime and only of MPs but also of members of the Executive. highlighted the ethical vacuum and disregard for conflict- of-interests caused by the continuing absence of a credible Second, article 98(2) and 78(3) of the Constitution, relating code of conduct for ministers and other executive to the grant of permission by the Speaker for MPs and employees. It is not possible to know whether the Ministers to engage in private business pursuits and unofficial Appointments Committee verified current claims of asset activities, must be read in conjunction with article 284, ownership and net worth against nominees’ officially which enjoins every public officer to avoid placing himself declared income and assets.