Emelia Afi Agbenyo
The controversy surrounding President John Dramani Mahama’s appointment of Emelia Afi Agbenyo as a Deputy Chairperson of Ghana’s Electoral Commission (EC) raises a question that deserves serious national reflection. How do we determine whether a person appointed to a sensitive public office can be trusted to discharge the responsibilities of that office fairly, independently and without political interference?
The question is important because the credibility of our elections depends, in part, on public confidence in those entrusted with managing them. On 12 October 2026, President Mahama swore in Emelia Afi Agbenyo and Dr Joseph Kwaku Asamoah as Deputy Chairpersons of the Electoral Commission, urging them to perform their duties without favour towards any political party, candidate or government. The appointments have prompted renewed political debate about impartiality and the selection of persons for positions of national importance.
Source: Ghana News Agency, 12 October 2026.
Mindset Transformation Initiative (MTI) believes this debate presents an opportunity to look beyond the immediate political contest and examine a more fundamental issue: Are we placing so much emphasis on finding individuals without perceived political associations that we risk neglecting the stronger safeguards needed to protect our public institutions?
The Difficult Search for a Politically Unblemished Person
In a politically divided society, the demand for neutral and impartial public officers is understandable. Citizens want judges who dispense justice without political considerations, electoral commissioners who administer elections without favour, and public officials who serve the Republic rather than the interests of the government that appointed them.
These are reasonable expectations.
However, we must also confront a practical difficulty. In a society where political parties influence public discourse, professional networks, civic participation and national debate, how easy is it to identify a competent individual who has never held a political opinion, associated with a politically active person, supported a public policy or been perceived as sympathetic to one political tradition?
The expression politically unblemished can become an elusive standard if it means that an appointee must have no past association, opinion, or circumstance that a political opponent might question.
A person may have a political history and still possess the integrity to serve impartially. Another may have no known political affiliation yet lack the courage to resist pressure, the discipline to follow the law or the moral strength to act against the interests of those who appointed them.
Political neutrality cannot therefore be established solely by examining a person’s background. It must also be demonstrated through conduct, decisions and a willingness to uphold the law, even when doing so displeases powerful interests.
This does not mean that a candidate’s political history should be ignored. Relevant associations, conflicts of interest and evidence of partisan conduct deserve careful scrutiny. It means that such scrutiny should be based on credible evidence and fair standards rather than political suspicion alone.
Consistency Matters, but So Does Institutional Integrity
MTI recognises the concerns being raised by political parties about consistency in public appointments. Where one party demands strict standards of neutrality while in opposition but applies a different standard when in government, public confidence suffers.
Political parties must be prepared to defend the same principles regardless of which party holds power.
If a party believes that an electoral commissioner should not have a close and demonstrable relationship with a political organisation, that principle should apply whether the appointment is made by an NDC or NPP administration. If a party argues that appointments to the judiciary must be protected from political influence, it should support the same protections when its political interests are not directly affected.
The test of a principle is whether its supporters are prepared to uphold it when doing so is inconvenient.
Nevertheless, political consistency alone will not guarantee institutional independence. Even where an appointment process is transparent, and the appointee has an impressive professional record, the institution must still have systems that prevent improper interference and make misconduct difficult to conceal.
The central question must therefore extend beyond who has been appointed to include the conditions under which that person will exercise authority.
Institutions Must Be Stronger Than the Individuals Who Lead Them
Ghana’s Electoral Commission is a constitutional institution with a responsibility that extends beyond the interests of any government or political party. Article 46 of the 1992 Constitution provides that, in performing its functions, the Commission shall not be subject to the control or direction of any person or authority, except as provided by the Constitution or other applicable law.
This principle is fundamental. The Commission must serve the Republic and its citizens. Yet constitutional independence must be supported by practical arrangements that protect the electoral process from manipulation, undue pressure, administrative abuse and individual misconduct. No democratic country should have to depend entirely on the personal virtue of the people appointed to administer its elections. Good people can make mistakes. People can face pressure. People can change their positions. Institutions must be designed to withstand these human realities.
The same principle applies to the judiciary. We need judges of integrity, but we also need transparent judicial processes, clear rules of professional conduct, independent disciplinary procedures and decisions that can be examined against the law and the evidence. The objective should be to create institutions in which the rules are stronger than personal loyalties, and accountability is more powerful than political influence.
What Would Stronger Electoral Safeguards Look Like?
MTI proposes that Ghana’s national conversation should give greater attention to the practical safeguards that protect the integrity of elections, irrespective of who occupies the leadership of the Electoral Commission.
First, strengthen the transparency of electoral procedures
The processes for voter registration, collation, transmission, verification and declaration of results must be governed by clear, publicly available rules. Any changes to those procedures should be properly explained, legally authorised and communicated in good time
Second, establish effective independent verification
Election results should be supported by verifiable records at each stage of the process. Party agents, accredited observers and other legally authorised stakeholders should have meaningful opportunities to observe procedures, obtain the records they are entitled to receive and raise objections through established channels.
Where electronic systems are used, they should be supported by appropriate security controls, independent technical audits and reliable contingency arrangements.
Third, strengthen accountability for electoral misconduct
There should be clear procedures for investigating credible allegations of interference, falsification, deliberate obstruction or abuse of electoral authority. Investigations must be impartial, timely and subject to the law. Proven misconduct should attract appropriate sanctions, regardless of the rank or political connections of the person involved.
By Sidney Justin Tehoda
The post The Search For The Politically Unblemished: Are We Asking The Impossible Of Public Appointees? (1) appeared first on DailyGuide Network.