Private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu has raised serious concerns about the suitability of the venue used by Parliament’s Appointments Committee to vet President John Mahama’s ministerial nominees.
Describing the environment as unfit for such a critical democratic process, Kpebu highlighted issues of poor ventilation, overcrowding, and discomfort during the vetting sessions.
Speaking on TV3’s KeyPoints on Saturday, February 1, Kpebu did not mince words in his critique of the conference room where the vetting took place. “That room is too small, way too small. Some of the air conditioners were not even working. Within five minutes of entering, you start sweating profusely. It was serious, like a death trap,” he lamented. His vivid description painted a picture of an environment that was not only uncomfortable but also potentially hazardous for attendees.
Kpebu urged Parliament to reconsider the venue for future vetting sessions, emphasizing the importance of transparency and public participation in such processes. He argued that the current setup limits the ability of citizens to engage with and observe the vetting of ministerial nominees, which is a crucial aspect of democratic accountability.
“Many party faithful want to attend the vetting. The process should be done in a place that can accommodate up to 1,000 attendees. That way, we encourage citizen participation, which ultimately leads to better outcomes,” he suggested. Kpebu’s call for a larger venue reflects a broader concern about the accessibility of parliamentary proceedings and the need to foster greater public involvement in governance.
The issue of limited seating and restricted access to parliamentary events has been a recurring concern among citizens and civil society groups. Critics argue that the current arrangements undermine the principles of openness and inclusivity, which are essential for building public trust in democratic institutions.
Kpebu’s comments have sparked a fresh debate about the need for Parliament to adopt more practical and inclusive measures for conducting its business. As Ghana continues to strengthen its democratic processes, the call for a more suitable venue for ministerial vetting underscores the importance of creating spaces that accommodate both the practical needs of participants and the democratic ideals of transparency and public engagement.
The ball is now in Parliament’s court to address these concerns and take steps to ensure that future vetting sessions are held in environments that reflect the seriousness and inclusivity of the process. After all, democracy thrives not just in the decisions made but also in the spaces where those decisions are shaped and scrutinized.
