Senior Lecturer at the University of Ghana, Dr Joshua Jebuntie Zaato, has criticised the Council of State over its role in the appointment of Emelia Afi Agbenyo as Deputy Chairperson of the Electoral Commission (EC), calling for greater transparency regarding the considerations that informed its recommendation.
Dr Zaato questioned whether the advisory body adequately assessed Ms Agbenyo’s political background before recommending her to President John Dramani Mahama, warning that the decision could raise concerns about the perceived independence and impartiality of the Electoral Commission.
Speaking during a panel discussion on Channel One TV, the lecturer argued that the Council of State must be prepared to explain the reasoning behind its recommendation, given the Electoral Commission’s critical role in Ghana’s democratic process.
“Council of State, history will not be fair to you,” he said, questioning whether the body had sufficiently considered the potential implications of its decision.
“History will say, you did not do the president any favour. History will say, did you know about this woman’s political bona fides before you proposed her to the president?” he asked.
Dr Zaato’s comments centre on concerns about the need to ensure that appointments to the Electoral Commission’s leadership inspire public confidence, particularly in a politically competitive environment where the Commission’s decisions are closely scrutinised by political parties and the electorate.
Dr Zaato questioned whether the Council of State adequately examined Ms Agbenyo’s political exposure and background before recommending her for the position.
He noted that the body reportedly had several curricula vitae to consider during the selection process and argued that the public deserved to understand the factors that informed its final decision.
“When we read the minutes from the Council of State, and sometimes I hope that on topical issues like this that everybody’s talking about, that sometimes the Council of State can, I don’t want to say break protocol, let us see what went into this decision,” he said.
According to him, greater openness about the selection process would help establish whether the Council carefully considered the possible consequences of its recommendation for the Electoral Commission’s credibility.
He expressed concern that the decision could fuel perceptions of political influence over the Commission, an institution whose effectiveness depends partly on public confidence in its ability to conduct elections impartially.
“Did you see her political exposure? And did you know what you were doing to the EC by that?” he asked.
Dr Zaato further questioned whether the Council’s recommendation could contribute to the politicisation of the Electoral Commission, insisting that the body should explain the considerations underlying its decision.
“The Council of State might have colluded in politicising the Electoral Commission by doing this. Can they give us the reasoning?” he asked.
His remarks are a call for greater accountability from the Council of State rather than a demonstration that the body had acted improperly. He argued that explaining the basis for its recommendation would help the public better understand the process and its implications for the Commission.
Although advocating greater transparency, Dr Zaato acknowledged that the Council of State is not legally required to publish the minutes of its deliberations.
He nevertheless argued that the absence of a legal obligation should not necessarily prevent the body from considering voluntary disclosure, particularly when its decisions on important constitutional appointments attract significant public attention.
“It’s true that I think it is about time we demand some amount of transparency from the Council of State. We know that that is not a legal requirement. They don’t have any legal requirements. So why are you suddenly wanting them to publicise their minutes?” he said during the discussion.
His remarks highlighted the tension between established institutional practices surrounding confidential deliberations and growing public demands for accountability from constitutional bodies.
For Dr Zaato, providing greater insight into the considerations behind controversial recommendations could help address public concerns and demonstrate that the Council had carefully weighed the relevant issues before reaching its decision.
The debate also raises broader questions about how constitutional institutions can balance the confidentiality of their internal deliberations with the public interest in understanding decisions that affect the credibility of key democratic institutions.
The controversy has renewed attention on the importance of preserving public confidence in the Electoral Commission, which is responsible for organising and supervising elections in the country.
As a key institution in the country’s democratic system, the Commission is expected to perform its duties impartially and maintain the confidence of political parties, candidates and voters.
Consequently, appointments to its leadership attract considerable public interest, particularly when questions arise about the political backgrounds of nominees and the processes through which they are selected.
Dr Zaato believes the Council of State has a responsibility to consider how its recommendations may affect perceptions of the Commission and the public’s willingness to trust its decisions.
His call for transparency reflects concerns that even when an appointment follows the established constitutional process, questions surrounding the selection criteria and the background of a nominee can generate debate about institutional independence.
However, concerns about perceived political affiliations should be distinguished from evidence of actual political interference or misconduct.
The central issue raised by Dr Zaato is whether the Council of State can provide sufficient insight into the reasoning behind its recommendation to address public concerns and demonstrate that the relevant considerations were adequately assessed.
Ultimately, he believes the Council must recognise the long-term implications of its decisions, particularly when they concern institutions entrusted with protecting the integrity of Ghana’s democratic process.
For him, the credibility of the Electoral Commission and the public’s confidence in constitutional governance are important considerations that should not be overlooked when making appointments to sensitive public offices.
By 1960news.com
