Constitution does not mandate vetting of nominees – Abraham Amaliba

Legal expert Abraham Amaliba has argued that Ghana's Constitution does not require the parliamentary Appointments Committee to vet nominees through a public process. Speaking on TV3's morning programme, he stated that there is no explicit provision in the Constitution mandating such vetting. Amaliba asserted during a discussion on whether the current vetting process meets democratic standards that the Constitution does not require extensive public interrogation of nominees.

He maintained that the committee could review the qualifications and eligibility of nominees, ensuring they meet constitutional requirements for appointment, before deciding to approve or reject them. His remarks come amid debate over the nature of parliamentary vetting sessions, with critics questioning whether some aspects have become overly partisan.

The Appointments Committee, especially in the 9th Parliament, has faced criticism for heated exchanges and confrontations, raising concerns about decorum and the standards expected of Parliament, often called the country's "august House." The debate has also highlighted questions about the relevance of certain questions and comments during vetting sessions, with some arguing that portions of the proceedings sometimes stray from issues directly related to a nominee's competence, qualifications, integrity, and suitability for office.

While parliamentary approval may be constitutionally required for certain high-level appointments, Amaliba's argument suggests that the Constitution does not prescribe the detailed public vetting procedures that have become part of parliamentary practice.