These days, almost everything in Ghana appears to be viewed through a partisan lens.

What we do is endlessly analysed; who we are seen with leads to assumptions about party affiliations; and even a single speaker can change how an event is interpreted.

Amid all this navel-gazing, discussions about more pressing needs – such as the economic and social development objectives in our National Development Plan – are pushed far into the background.


Some communities still lack running water. In others, pregnant women are transported to hospitals for delivery on rickety, unsafe dinghies.

Our roads are unsafe and so are our schools. And yet, our public discourse is often dominated by partisan politics, leaving us to wonder whether enough attention is being paid to issues that matter most to the average Ghanaian.

The latest issue dominating the news concerns Ms Emelia Affi Agbenyo, appointed by President John Dramani Mahama as Deputy Chairperson of the Electoral Commission.

Immediately, critics cried foul, citing concerns about her political activities during the 2024 election campaign. Her supporters pointed to her qualifications and suitability.

The Coalition of Domestic Election Observers (CODEO) called for her resignation, citing concerns about public confidence in the Commission’s impartiality.

A broader concern should be: How should we assess the suitability of people appointed to public office, particularly positions where independence and public trust are essential?

Where we stand shapes what we see

Research suggests that our political leanings can influence our assessment of situations.

In a September 2023 Daily Graphic article titled “Do we think election outcomes are free and fair?” Dr John Osae-Kwapong explored how partisanship can influence perceptions of electoral outcomes.

He wrote: “… when partisans win an election, contested or not, the outcome is judged as free and fair. When partisans lose an election, whether contested or not, the outcome is judged as not free and fair.”

Could something similar be influencing how we are assessing Ms Agbenyo’s appointment?

In 2023, civil society organisations and the opposition party criticised appointments to the Electoral Commission under then-President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, questioning the perceived political affiliations of the appointees.

In 2023, civil society organisations and the opposition party criticised appointments to the Electoral Commission under then-President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, questioning the perceived political affiliations of the appointees.

Therefore, if members of the Council of State — then and now — applied the same qualification standards, then it cannot be right for one, and wrong for another.

Partisan indignation often appears to apply different standards depending on which party is in power.

Appointments that are defended as legitimate under one administration attract criticism under another.

When this happens, we must ask whether our objections are grounded in consistent principles or influenced, at least in part, by our political preferences.

In Ghana, almost every senior public office is filled by supporters of whoever won the last election.

That’s because political considerations are often part of the process through which people are identified for senior public appointments.

The President appoints Ministers, ambassadors, and leaders of some independent bodies.

For institutions such as the Electoral Commission, the Constitution protects their independence by giving the President the power to appoint the Commission’s leadership in consultation with the Council of State.

Appointer’s expectation doesn’t dictate appointee’s conduct
Dr Kwadwo Afari-Gyan led the Electoral Commission from 1993 until June 2015 and across those twenty-two years, presidents from different parties governed Ghana.

Many of us can’t readily remember who appointed him. His tenure should have assured us that staff of the Electoral Commission are able to serve independently through successive administrations.

All this changed when his successor, Madam Charlotte Osei, was removed from office. For many, her removal marked the period when partisan distrust of the EC deepened.

The argument of perception
In the age of social media and algorithmic manipulations, public perceptions are rarely formed neutrally.

Political narratives travel faster than facts, through narrow echo chambers, influencing interpretation.

The perception problem is an important one, but the solution may lie in a better process, not a purity test applied selectively.

In this case, we should be debating questions such as: Was the appointment process followed?

Does the appointee possess the necessary qualifications and experience?

And what safeguards exist to ensure the appointee serves independently?

In considering Ms Agbenyo’s appointment, it is important to distinguish between the evidence of competence, the ability to act independently, and public perceptions of impartiality.

All these are important indicators that an electoral body must demonstrate to sustain public confidence in its work.

Expectations for public service
Political affiliation by itself should not automatically disqualify a person from public service.

Many capable Ghanaians participate in political parties, and we should encourage the brightest and best of us to actively do so.

The reality, however, is that only a few will ever be in consideration for particular public appointments when their party is in power.

But public office carries obligations that transcend party loyalty.

Those entrusted with public responsibilities must act in the public interest, exercise independent judgement and be accountable for their decisions. Political participation and the ability to serve impartially should not be seen as mutually exclusive.

Ms Agbenyo, like any other appointee, should be assessed against the requirements of her office, the integrity of the appointment process and the manner in which she discharges her responsibilities.

Her political background may form part of the public discussion, but it should not substitute for evidence of her competence or how she will perform her duties.

If we truly believe that party affiliation determines how a person acts while in service to Ghana, then our problem is not with one appointee.
It is with the whole system. In that case, we must rather be concerned about whether our public appointments systems are structured to encourage competence, independence and accountability, and whether we have adequate safeguards to protect those principles when political power changes hands.

That is a much larger and more consequential conversation than a debate about any one individual.

And if we don’t agree with the last point, then maybe, just maybe, our thinking may need a “r (known in private life as Prof. Koryoe Anim-Wright)