The nominee sits at a table facing a horseshoe of MPs, with cameras broadcasting every word. For hours, committee members ask about the nominee’s past jobs, tax payments, public statements and plans for the ministry. Some questions are friendly; others are pointed. This is a vetting session of Parliament’s Appointments Committee, a fixture of Ghanaian politics every time a new government takes office or a minister is replaced.
The rule, the committee and who is vetted
Ghana’s 1992 Constitution requires that ministers of state be appointed by the President with the prior approval of Parliament. This gives Parliament a role in checking the executive’s choices. The Appointments Committee is made up of MPs from both the majority and minority sides. It is usually chaired by the First Deputy Speaker. The committee holds hearings and then recommends whether Parliament should approve each nominee.
Besides ministers and deputy ministers, the committee vets nominees for some other offices, including Supreme Court justices, according to the Constitution’s requirements.
Hearings, the vote and controversies
Nominees answer questions about their qualifications, experience, past conduct and plans. They are often asked about their tax records and declarations of assets. Vetting sessions are broadcast live on television and radio and attract wide public interest. Memorable answers and tense exchanges often go viral on social media. After the hearing, the committee presents a report to Parliament, which then votes. Approval often follows party lines, though there have been cases where nominees were delayed or rejected.
Some sessions have been heated, with minority MPs challenging nominees over past statements or decisions. Occasionally, nominees have been withdrawn after public criticism.
Criticism and preparing for vetting
Critics say vetting can be superficial when one party has a large majority. Others argue that the process still exposes nominees to public scrutiny. When Parliament was evenly split after the 2020 elections, vetting became more contested, with each side able to block or delay approvals. Nominees usually prepare carefully, studying their ministry’s work and reviewing their own past statements. Some bring advisers and family members, who sit behind them in the chamber throughout the long hearing.
A vetting hearing rarely decides whether a nominee gets the job. It does decide what the public knows about them on their first day in office.
