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.
Fourth, protect the independence of election officials at every level
Electoral integrity cannot rest on the character of the Chairperson and Deputy Chairpersons alone. Regional and district officials, returning officers, collation teams and other personnel must work under professional standards that protect them from improper political pressure. Their duties, reporting lines and disciplinary arrangements should be clearly defined.
Fifth, make electoral processes more open to public scrutiny
Public confidence grows when citizens can understand how results are produced and how disputes are resolved. Clear documentation, timely publication of legally releasable results, transparent reconciliation procedures and accessible complaint mechanisms can help reduce suspicion and strengthen trust.
Sixth, improve the appointment process itself
The selection of persons for sensitive constitutional offices should be transparent, merit-based and supported by credible scrutiny of professional competence, integrity, independence and potential conflicts of interest. The public should be able to understand the criteria applied and the reasons candidates are considered suitable.
The Constitution Review Committee’s December 2025 recommendations on Electoral Commission appointments provide a useful starting point for examining reforms, including open competitive recruitment, a more structured selection process and parliamentary approval of nominees.
These recommendations should be considered on their merits as part of the wider national reform debate. The purpose of these safeguards is straightforward: to make electoral manipulation difficult, detectable and punishable, whoever might attempt it
Should We Abandon the Search for Neutrality?
MTI does not suggest that impartiality is unimportant or that political history should be irrelevant to public appointments. Nor should we lower the standards expected of people entrusted with sensitive constitutional responsibilities. Rather, we must distinguish between demanding impartial conduct and expecting to find a person whom nobody can accuse of political sympathy. The first is a necessary democratic standard.
The second may become an endless political exercise, particularly when rival parties judge the same individual according to their competing interests. Perhaps, therefore, Ghana should reconsider the weight it places on searching for a supposedly politically spotless candidate. We should retain rigorous scrutiny of an appointee’s record, but direct more of our national energy towards building systems that ensure that no appointee can easily compromise the institution they serve.
This is particularly important because public appointments are made within a constitutional and political framework. The fact that an officeholder was appointed by a President does not, by itself, establish that the individual will act in the President’s interest. Equally, the absence of a known party affiliation does not automatically establish impartiality. The fair approach is to examine the appointment process, the candidate’s qualifications and record, any credible evidence of conflicts or partisan conduct, and the safeguards that will govern the exercise of the office.
In the case of the Electoral Commission, the ultimate test should be whether the electoral system can produce credible, verifiable and legally defensible results, irrespective of the political identity of the people managing it.
A Call for a Change in National Mindset
As a civic organisation committed to responsibility, integrity, discipline and national development, Mindset Transformation Initiative believes that Ghana’s democratic maturity requires a shift in how we approach these matters. We must move from a political culture that concentrates almost exclusively on the perceived loyalties of individuals to one that demands competence, accountability and institutional resilience.
Political parties have a legitimate responsibility to scrutinise appointments. Civil society has a duty to ask difficult questions. The media must investigate and report responsibly. Citizens must insist on transparency. Appointees must understand that public office is a trust held on behalf of the Republic. All these responsibilities are complementary.
We must also resist the temptation to pronounce individuals guilty of political bias without credible evidence. Public confidence is not strengthened when allegations are treated as established facts simply because they suit a political argument. Equally, allegations should not be dismissed merely because they concern an appointee of the governing party.
The same standards must apply to everyone. A mature democracy should be able to scrutinise an appointment firmly while respecting the appointee’s right to be assessed fairly. It should also be able to demand stronger institutional safeguards without making assumptions about the intentions of any particular officeholder.
Conclusion: Let Us Protect the Sanctity of the Vote
Mindset Transformation Initiative appreciates the concerns being expressed by political parties about consistency, impartiality and public confidence in appointments to the Electoral Commission. These concerns deserve a fair hearing, and the appointment process must always be open to legitimate scrutiny. However, we believe Ghana must look beyond the search for a person who is perceived to have no political blemish.
That search can become subjective, politically selective and difficult to conclude. Perhaps it is time to place less emphasis on the impossible expectation of finding a politically unblemished individual and greater emphasis on creating an electoral system that no individual can easily manipulate. We should insist on qualified, ethical and impartial public officers. At the same time, we must establish safeguards that make interference difficult, ensure that irregularities can be detected, provide effective remedies for disputes and hold offenders accountable under the law.
The sanctity of the vote must never depend solely on the goodwill of the person occupying an office. It must be protected by sound laws, transparent procedures, independent verification, professional electoral administration and effective accountability. Whether the Electoral Commission is led by persons appointed under an NDC, NPP or any future administration, the same safeguards must apply. No political party should have to trust the personal goodwill of its opponent to believe that an election has been conducted fairly.
Our national objective should be to build an electoral system in which the results reflect the will of the Ghanaian people, where that will can be independently verified, and where no amount of attempted manipulation can overturn the lawful outcome without detection and appropriate remedy. The ultimate safeguard for Ghana’s democracy is not merely the hope that we appoint the right people. It is the determination to build institutions that compel every person, regardless of political affiliation or personal interest, to do what is right under the law. That is the mindset Ghana must cultivate.
*******
By Sidney Justin Tehoda