International corporate lawyer Victoria Bright has described the explanation that Afi Agbenyo’s appointment as Deputy Chairperson of the Electoral Commission (EC) was intended to “tilt the balance” as deeply troubling, warning that it could undermine public confidence in the Commission’s independence.
She said the justification appeared inconsistent with President John Mahama’s assurance that the new EC leadership must act impartially and must not favour his government or the National Democratic Congress (NDC).
Speaking on JoyNews’ Newsfile programme on Saturday, October 17, Ms Bright welcomed President Mahama’s call for the new EC leadership to remain neutral but said the assurance could be undermined by statements suggesting that political balance influenced the appointments.
She said that the government needed to communicate its position consistently to avoid creating doubts about the Commission’s independence.
“The President’s instruction that neither his government nor his party should receive preferential treatment is very welcome,” she said.
“But government must speak consistently because an assurance of neutrality sits uneasily alongside an explanation based on tilting parties and balance.”
During the discussion, Ms Bright was asked whether the explanation had created an unnecessary problem for the President, given that Ms Agbenyo’s professional background, including her work with the German development agency GIZ, had been cited as evidence of her capacity to act impartially.
In response, she clarified that she was not accusing the President of creating a problem but was concerned about the mixed messages surrounding the appointment.
“I’m not saying that the President has caused any problems. What I’m saying, I did say that his comments were very welcome.”
“His comments on impartiality, the need for all our commissioners, including these two appointees, to be impartial, those comments are very welcome,” she said.
“But I’m saying that you can’t have that on the one hand and then on the other hand, you get an explanation saying, ‘Oh, but we have to tilt the political balance.’ Which suggests that there’s some political influence.”
Ms Bright said the government needed to be careful about how it explained appointments to institutions expected to operate independently of political parties.
Ms Bright said the government risked repeating the very problem it had previously criticised if political considerations were used to influence appointments to an independent institution.
“If government believes that previous appointments weakened the EC’s independence, it should strengthen the safeguards that protect independent judgement,” she said.
“Because, for me, appointments intended to adjust partisan influence will now be risking and entrenching the very problem that the government previously condemned.”
Ms Bright said such an explanation placed an unnecessary burden on the new appointees, as it could lead the public to judge their decisions through the lens of an alleged political motive.
“We need to defer to these appointees because this kind of explanation places an unnecessary burden on them,” she said.
“Even if Miss Agbenyo is determined to act impartially, government has now supplied the political purpose against which people may judge their decisions.”
Council of State’s role
The corporate lawyer also called for greater attention to the role of the Council of State in the appointment process, stressing that its advisory function formed an important part of the constitutional arrangements.
She said the public needed clarity on the criteria used to assess candidates, including whether their recent political activities had been disclosed and considered.
“I think the Council of State must also feature in this discussion, to be honest, because its advisory role is an important part of the constitutional process,” she said.
“What criteria were used? And were recent campaign roles disclosed and evaluated? How were concerns about public confidence addressed?”
Ms Bright, however, was careful not to suggest that the appointment process had breached any constitutional or procedural requirement.
She acknowledged that she was not privy to the Council of State’s deliberations or records and could not determine what considerations informed its advice.
“I don’t know what criteria they used. I don’t know whether concerns about public confidence were addressed. And I’m not even suggesting that we’ve established any procedural breach,” she said.
Her concern, she explained, was that the explanation offered for the appointments could affect how the public viewed the Commission, regardless of whether the process followed the required procedures.
“All I’m saying is that the public, the optics don’t look good,” she added.
EC papointment process must improve
Ms Bright urged the government and relevant institutions to use the controversy as an opportunity to improve the process for appointing members of the Electoral Commission.
She said publishing clear selection criteria could help reduce political disputes and improve public understanding of how candidates were assessed.
According to her, greater transparency would help address concerns about political affiliations and ensure that appointments were judged against established standards rather than competing political claims.
“We should use this recurring controversy to improve the appointment process,” she said.
“Maybe the criteria should be published in future to stop all this.”