Anti-corruption campaigner, Sydney Casely-Hayford has criticized members of Parliament’s Appointment Committee for dragging the vetting process of Martin Amidu.
According to him, about 80% of the questions asked by the members of the committee were not necessary and irrelevant to the position Martin Amidu had been nominated for.
Mr. Amidu, on Tuesday, February 13, faced Parliament’s Appointments Committee in what could probably be the longest ever parliamentary vetting session for an individual in the 4th Republic.
The Special Prosecutor nominee responded to over 180 questions from all members of the committee in the over 7-hour long session.
The National Democratic Congress (NDC) minority asked the most questions; making 75% of all queries, with the caucus’ leader, Haruna Iddrisu, being individual who asked the most number of questions.
Commenting on the development on The Big Issueon Saturday, Casely-Hayford said given Martin Amidu’s established competence and repute, the Committee could have completed the vetting in about two hours.
“There is absolutely no reason why we should grill somebody for 8 hours for a position that he is going to get anyway… With where Martin Amidu has put his stand as a citizen vigilante and the things he has done and the way the people of this country feel about him, I doubt very much if this country will tolerate a rejection of Martin Amidu’s nomination as the Special Prosecutor…I would say that 80% of the questions that were asked were not necessary and we could have gone home within an hour or two,” Casely-Hayford said.
“I found that we played a little fuss there and it didn’t seem like a necessary thing especially some of the questions that we were trying to get into; what happened to his ‘O’ and ‘A’ level certificate and all that. This for me was a problem…We frankly needed to simply establish the fact that he is qualified for the job and he is going to do the job… Those for me were the critical things we needed to address,” he added.
‘8-hour grilling necessary’
A member of the Appointments Committee, Mahama Ayariga in an earlier interview on the Citi Breakfast Show had suggested that the lengthy vetting was necessary for the Minority, in particular, to ascertain whether Martin Amidu could indeed carry out the mandate.
He however added that the caucus had had unanimously agreed to pass him prior to the exercise.
He noted that the posture of the Minority, who asked most of the questions during the vetting, was to indicate that they were not scared about the appointment of Martin Amidu as had been suggested by some observers.
Ayariga’s comments, however, were contradicted by the Minority Chief Whip, Muntaka Mubarak who said there was no prior decision to approve the nominee.
He, however, added that Minority’s conduct was to ensure they did not sound or appear emotional because Mr. Amidu is known to be a vehement critic of the NDC.
Source: citifmonline.com
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are those of the writers and do not reflect those of Peacefmonline.com. Peacefmonline.com accepts no responsibility legal or otherwise for their accuracy of content. Please report any inappropriate content to us, and we will evaluate it as a matter of priority. |
Some of the MP's were only there for their voice to be heard. I think in the future such vetting should be handled by competent people in the society rather than these young MP's.
8 HOURS VETING WITH NDC TAKING 75% WAS UNNECESSARY AND WASTE. I HOPE THE VETTING COMMITTEE REPORT TO PARLIAMENT WOULD NOT GENERATE DEBATE FOR ANOTHER COUPLE OF HOURS IN THE HOUSE. THE MINORITY, THOUGH INCLUDED SOME FINE GENTLEMEN, ARE BEING MISLEAD BY THEIR LEADERS AND SOME HEADSTRONG TO OBSTRUCT AND SOIL PARLIAMENTARY WORK. ANYBODY WHO WATCHED NEWSFILE THIS WEEKEND ABOUT CASH FOR SEAT FALSED CLAIM COULD EASILY UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC AND THE ARGUMENT OF KWAKU BAAKO AND YAW BUABENG ON THE ISSUE. DOMINIC AYINE WITH MUNTAKA WERE INCOHERENT. NDC MPS GOT IT ALL WRONG WHEN THEY IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF MINORITY INTEREST INSTEAD OF BECOMING INDEPENDENT-MINDED MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. THE WRONG APPROACH CULMINATED IN THEM TO BECOME CYNICAL WHICH LED TO THE DECISION TO GIVE A MINORITY REPORT. THOUGH THE BEHAVIOUR WAS ALIEN,DEVIANT AND ANOMALOUS TO PARLIAMENTARY PRACTICES, COPIES OF THE REPORT SHOULD BE KEPT IN THE ARCHIVES OF THE HOUSE FOR HISTORY AND RESEARCH. THAT WILL HELP ANY DEEP THINKING INDIVIDUAL LIKE KWAKU BAAKO TO KNOW THE FLAWS IN THINKING OF THE MINORITY MPS IN THE 7TH PARLIAMENT OF THE 4TH REPUBLIC.
The ndc members were handling Amidu like class one children kicking against wet case 5 football. By the time Amidu started his career, some of them were in kindergarten. Actually they couldn't handle him at all, for they are all kids to him.
these guys call themselves academicians, yet they don't know that every question is intended to achieve certain reaction. If you want to elicit the temperament level of a person, you can ask him an irrelevant question. Most of the so called ***barred word*** questions asked helped Ghanaians to see the real Martin amidu. You could see clearly his anger and bitter composure on display. And such a person is appointed special prosecutor? He was even cheeky with his answers which makes him unsuitable for the job. Competence alone is not enough, levelheadedness is equally necessary. They are many competent leaders who go home and beat the wives. Such people no matter their expertise are not suitable for leadership positions.
yes u are right boss. the ndc ask 99.9% of those unnecessary questions. ple like ablakwa were more interested in Amidu apologizing to them than asking sensible questions. well what sense is in their head to ask sensible questions?