A Reflection On Political Neutrality, Public Trust, And The Appointment Of Ghana’s Electoral Commission Leadership; Neutralising The Political Acid With The Appointment Of Bases

In Ghana’s democratic experiment, few institutions carry as much responsibility for public confidence as the Electoral Commission (EC). It is entrusted with managing elections, safeguarding the credibility of the ballot, and ensuring that the will of the people is expressed through a process that is transparent, credible, and accepted as legitimate. Yet the Commission has repeatedly found itself at the centre of political controversy, with appointments to its leadership becoming subjects of partisan debate. This raises an interesting question: Can the political acid of suspicion, mistrust, and partisanship be neutralised by the appointment of the right institutional BASES?

The metaphor is deliberate. In chemistry, an acid can be neutralised through an appropriate reaction with a base. In politics, however, neutrality cannot be achieved merely by appointing people who appear politically acceptable. It requires credible procedures, transparent decisions, institutional safeguards, professional integrity, and a willingness by political actors to respect institutions even when their decisions do not favour them.

The appointment of electoral commissioners therefore offers Ghana an opportunity to reflect on the relationship between political affiliation, actual impartiality, and the public perception of independence. The controversy surrounding appointments to Ghana’s Electoral Commission is not new. Under the previous New Patriotic Party (NPP) government, the appointment of the Commission’s leadership, particularly Chairperson Jean Mensa and her deputies, generated significant disagreement.

The changes in the Commission’s leadership in 2018, following the departure of Charlotte Osei and her deputies, became a major political flashpoint. The opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC) and other critics raised concerns about the circumstances surrounding the changes and the perceived independence of the incoming leadership. Supporters of the appointments, on the other hand, maintained that the constitutional process had been followed.

The debate intensified during subsequent electoral cycles, particularly around the Commission’s handling of electoral processes and its relationship with political parties. Critics questioned some of its decisions and communications, while the Commission defended its mandate and operational independence. These controversies demonstrate an important distinction: a constitutional appointment can be legally valid and still attract public questions about political neutrality. Equally, the existence of political controversy does not, by itself, establish that an appointee has acted improperly.

The lesson is that constitutional compliance and public confidence are related, but they are not identical. An appointment process may satisfy the formal requirements of the law while leaving some citizens unconvinced about whether the resulting institution is sufficiently independent of partisan influence. The appointment of two Deputy Chairpersons under President John Dramani Mahama has revived the national conversation about political neutrality within the Electoral Commission. On 12 October 2026, the President swore in Dr Joseph Kwaku Asamoah and Emelia Afi Agbenyo to fill vacancies created by the departure of Dr Bossman Asare and the retirement of Samuel Tettey.

The appointment of Mrs Agbenyo has attracted particular scrutiny because of her reported involvement in the NDC’s campaign activities and manifesto-related work. The opposition NPP has questioned whether her political associations are compatible with the perceived independence required of a Deputy Chairperson of the EC. The Presidency’s defence, communicated by presidential staffer Beatrice Annan, is that Mrs Agbenyo is not a card-bearing member of the NDC and that her political engagement should be understood in the context of her professional work and advocacy for gender inclusion. The NDC has also defended her qualifications. These are competing public positions, and neither political association nor a denial of formal party membership, on its own, establishes how an appointee will perform the duties of office.

In 2018, the NDC objected to the appointment of Jean Mensa as EC Chairperson and Dr Bossman Asare as Deputy Chairperson under former President Nana Akufo-Addo, raising concerns about their perceived political affiliations and the independence of the Commission. In 2023, the NDC again challenged appointments involving Hajia Salima Ahmed Tijani and Dr Peter Appiahene, expressing concerns about perceived political affiliations. In 2026, the NPP is raising similar concerns about an appointee under an NDC government.

The names and circumstances differ, but the underlying question remains strikingly familiar: can a person associated with a political party be trusted to serve impartially on an institution responsible for overseeing that party’s electoral fortunes? The more uncomfortable question is whether the answer changes when the party making the appointment changes.

Media coverage plays a significant role in shaping how Ghanaians understand appointments to public institutions. The current debate invites a comparison between the scrutiny directed at the previous government’s appointments and the discussion surrounding the latest appointments. However, a responsible comparison must examine actual reporting, not simply assume that every media organisation has adopted a partisan position.

In the current debate, media reports have featured the NPP’s objections, the NDC’s defence, the Presidency’s explanation and commentary about the importance of neutrality. The coverage has also highlighted the distinction between formal party membership, campaign involvement, professional qualifications and the public perception of independence.

When an appointment is made by one government, journalists may investigate an appointee’s political associations, previous public statements, professional record and potential conflicts of interest. When another government makes a similar appointment, those same questions should remain legitimate.But media neutrality does not mean treating every allegation as an established fact. It means verifying claims, seeking responses from those concerned, distinguishing evidence from speculation, and applying comparable standards regardless of political affiliation.

A fair assessment of media consistency would therefore require examining the headlines, prominence, tone, sources and evidence used in coverage of comparable appointments under both governments. Without that systematic comparison, claims of selective media treatment remain hypotheses rather than established conclusions.The media must not become a chemical reagent that intensifies the political acid. Its role should be to clarify the debate, expose inconsistencies and hold public officials accountable without turning allegations into verdicts.

Is There Anything Like Political Neutrals in Ghana? This question deserves serious consideration. Political neutrality does not necessarily mean that a person has no political opinions, has never voted for a party, or has never participated in public debate. In a democratic society, citizens are entitled to political beliefs and freedom of expression.

The more relevant distinction is between having political opinions and allowing those opinions to determine the discharge of official responsibilities.

A person may have political convictions and still act fairly, provided the person respects the law, manages conflicts of interest and applies the same standards to all parties. Conversely, someone who claims to be politically neutral may still demonstrate bias through decisions, conduct or selective application of rules.

There is also a difference between being politically neutral and being perceived as politically neutral. The former concerns conduct and impartiality; the latter concerns the confidence that citizens place in an institution.

For the Electoral Commission, both matter. Article 46 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution provides that, in performing its functions, the Commission shall not be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority. The constitutional protection of institutional independence is therefore central to the discussion.

Ghana’s Constitution provides for the President to appoint the Chairperson, Deputy Chairpersons and other members of the Commission acting on the advice of the Council of State. This framework gives the appointing process a formal constitutional basis, but it does not automatically eliminate public concerns about perceived partisanship.

If political ACID represents accusation, confrontation, inconsistency and distrust, then BASES can represent the institutional principles required to neutralise it.

Balanced and transparent appointments: Appointment procedures should provide credible opportunities to assess professional competence, integrity, relevant experience and potential conflicts of interest. Greater transparency can help the public understand why a particular candidate was selected.

Accountability without partisan selectivity: Both government and opposition must be prepared to answer questions about appointments made under their own leadership. A principle that is defended only when one’s party is in opposition is vulnerable to the charge of political convenience.

Standards that remain consistent: The standards used to assess political involvement, professional qualifications and impartiality should not change with the identity of the appointing government. Comparable cases should be evaluated using comparable criteria, while recognising relevant differences in evidence and circumstances.

Evidence before accusation: Political affiliations and campaign activities may raise legitimate questions about public confidence, but they do not automatically prove misconduct or future bias. Equally, professional qualifications alone do not resolve every concern about independence. Claims should be tested against evidence, and appointees should be judged by both their record and their conduct in office.

Safeguards for institutional independence: The independence of the Electoral Commission should be supported by clear conflict-of-interest rules, transparent decision-making, professional ethics and meaningful accountability. Public confidence grows when the institution demonstrates that its decisions are guided by law rather than partisan advantage.

These BASES are not intended to guarantee that every political controversy will disappear. Their purpose is to create conditions in which disagreements can be resolved through evidence, fair procedures and institutional trust rather than partisan suspicion. The appointment controversy should not end with a debate about who nominated whom. It should lead to a broader discussion about the standards expected of everyone entrusted with managing Ghana’s elections. The new Deputy Chairpersons must have the opportunity to perform their constitutional duties without prejudgment. At the same time, the public retains the right to scrutinise their conduct and demand accountability.

The government should be willing to explain its appointment decisions. The opposition should be willing to apply the same principles it demanded when it was in power. The media should investigate without exaggeration, and civil society should advocate reforms that strengthen public confidence. Most importantly, the Electoral Commission must demonstrate impartiality through its decisions and actions. Confidence cannot be demanded as a political favour; it must be earned through consistent institutional conduct.

Ghana’s democratic maturity will not be measured by whether every citizen agrees with every appointment. It will be measured by whether the country can establish fair standards, apply them consistently and maintain trust in its institutions despite political disagreements. Who Is Truly Neutral? Perhaps the greatest challenge in Ghanaian politics is not the absence of people who claim neutrality, but the difficulty of agreeing on the standards by which neutrality should be judged.

Every political party wants an electoral umpire it can trust. Yet, when an appointment is perceived to favour the opposing side, confidence can quickly give way to suspicion. When the political balance changes, the language of criticism and defence can also change. This recurring pattern invites reflection on whether political neutrality is being treated as a democratic principle or as a convenient argument in the struggle for power.

The appointment of electoral commissioners should therefore become an opportunity to build stronger institutions rather than another occasion for partisan score-settling. The ultimate objective is not to appoint people who satisfy every political party, an unlikely outcome in a competitive democracy, but to establish a credible process and enforce standards that give every party and every citizen reasonable grounds to trust the system.

Political ACID can be neutralised only when the BASES are stronger than the interests that produce the acid.

And so, the philosophical question for every Ghanaian is this:

“If we call an appointment partisan when our opponents make it but defend the same principle when our own side benefits, are we truly searching for political neutrality or merely searching for a neutral umpire who will favour our side?”

Perhaps the real test of our democracy is not whether we can identify politically neutral people, but whether we are willing to uphold the same standards of neutrality when doing so no longer serves our political interests.