Former Auditor-General Daniel Yaw Domelevo has raised concerns over the line of questioning during ministerial vetting, stressing that the process should prioritize competence rather than trivial matters.
In an interview on Joy News’ PM Express, Domelevo argued that the primary goal of an appointment interview is to assess whether the nominee is fit for the position and possesses the necessary skills to effectively carry out their duties.
“My thinking is that in allotting time and asking questions, we must be strategic enough to tease out the competencies that we require,” he explained.
“For instance, if you are going to occupy the office of the Minister of Finance, you must prove to the committee that you have what it takes to manage the country’s finances. If you are going to be the Minister of Agriculture, you must be able to prove that you understand the sector. That is what I expect,” he emphasized.
Domelevo’s comments reflect growing concerns over the current ministerial vetting process, with increasing calls for reforms to ensure competency-based questioning.
He also criticized the excessive length of some interviews, suggesting that prolonged questioning does not necessarily lead to better insights.
“I have worked in international organizations, but I have never seen the President of the World Bank being interviewed for four and a half hours. That is excessive,” he stated. “Too many questions are not necessary for someone who will be running a whole ministry. We need questions that will tease out the nominee’s competence, not dive into what I would describe as trivialities.”
Domelevo further questioned the inconsistency in time allocation during vetting, pointing out that some nominees undergo intense scrutiny, while others are barely questioned.
“I would like to say that my concern is, how important is that ministry that they spend just 10 minutes on it? Is it that the ministry is so unimportant that one nominee gets four and a half hours while another is done in just 10 minutes? If we get a minister who does not perform—God forbid—who do we blame?” he asked.
Having chaired high-level appointment panels in the past, Domelevo called for stricter rules to regulate the questioning process.
“Many times, questions are repeated, which should not be allowed. In international practice, part of the chair’s job is to disallow irrelevant questions,” he explained. “The chair should say, ‘That question has already been answered, let’s move on.’ This ensures we get the benefit of a structured interview.”
He also highlighted the lack of proper advertisement for public input on nominees, urging for a more serious and strategic approach.
“In a situation where we are even being told that there was no advertisement for public input, we need to be more serious, more strategic,” he said. “I wouldn’t want to pick on individuals, but when I hear someone quizzing a nominee on their membership in the Knights of Marshall, I ask myself, ‘How relevant is that to the position they are going to occupy?’”
ALSO READ: