
Franklin Cudjoe, Founding President of IMANI Africa, has come to the defense of Ghana’s recent ministerial vetting process, asserting that nearly all relevant questions were asked during the sessions.
Speaking on TV3’s The Key Points on Saturday, February 1, Cudjoe praised the depth and relevance of the inquiries, particularly commending Deputy Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin for his insightful and well-structured questioning.
“I enjoyed Afenyo’s questions,” Cudjoe remarked, highlighting how the MP focused on critical governance and policy issues. He dismissed claims that the vetting process lacked substance, emphasizing that the core concerns of Ghanaians were adequately addressed. “I disagree with those who say the ministerial vetting did not capture essential areas of interest. Almost all the relevant questions were asked,” he stated.
However, Cudjoe did not shy away from criticizing the conduct of some Members of Parliament during the vetting sessions. He expressed concern that certain MPs used the platform for personal grandstanding rather than addressing national priorities. “You, members of Parliament, are representing us. All of us cannot go asking the nominees questions. So, you are supposed to get into our heads, get a sense of what is urgent, of importance to the people of Ghana, not just to yourself and to your ego per se, and to your little personal fights and grandstanding,” he said.
Cudjoe also lamented the misuse of national airtime, arguing that some of the personal and politically charged questions should have been handled privately rather than in a public forum. “Sometimes you look at them and you listen to their questioning, and I’m like, why don’t you do this in your private room? Why don’t you do this off the camera? Because we really don’t need the kind of diatribe,” he added.
The IMANI Africa president further pointed to lapses in the management of the vetting process, particularly by the committee chairman. He argued that the chairman should have intervened to maintain order when the sessions devolved into chaos. “If you are chairing a very important and sensitive program or activity of this nature and it ends up in such chaos, I think it’s a very big problem,” he remarked.
Cudjoe suggested that the chairman could have taken proactive steps to restore order, such as calling for a break when discussions became unproductive. “The committee chairman could have said, ‘Listen, the way things are going, I think we need a break. Can we take a break? Suspend certain discussions,’” he proposed.
The ministerial vetting process is a cornerstone of Ghana’s governance framework, ensuring that nominees for key government positions are thoroughly scrutinized for competence and suitability. While Cudjoe’s defense of the process underscores its importance, his criticisms highlight areas for improvement, particularly in maintaining focus and decorum during these high-stakes sessions.
Cudjoe’s remarks serve as a call to action for MPs to prioritize national interests over personal agendas and for committee leaders to exercise greater control over proceedings. As Ghana continues to strengthen its democratic institutions, the vetting process remains a critical tool for ensuring accountability and transparency in government.