Editorial: Ghana’s new EC deputies must earn public trust through their conduct

The appointment of Emelia Afi Agbenyo and Dr Joseph Kwaku Asamoah places fresh responsibility on Ghana’s Electoral Commission. Its credibility will depend on transparent decisions, consistent standards and independence demonstrated in everyday practice.

An electoral commission’s most valuable asset is public confidence that it will administer elections fairly, regardless of who holds power or who stands to benefit.

The appointment of Emelia Afi Agbenyo and Dr Joseph Kwaku

Asamoah as deputy chairpersons of Ghana’s Electoral Commission must therefore be assessed against a standard that extends beyond their qualifications or the assurances offered at their inauguration.

The two deputies were sworn in on Monday, October 12. Their arrival is an opportunity to strengthen the institution’s work, but an appointment alone cannot establish public trust. That must be earned through decisions that citizens can understand, procedures that stakeholders can scrutinise and rules that apply consistently to everyone.

The concerns surrounding Agbenyo’s reported previous involvement in the National Democratic Congress deserve a measured response. The opposition has questioned whether those associations could affect her impartiality. Such concerns should be addressed substantively, without treating political history as conclusive evidence of future misconduct.

Previous political involvement and demonstrated bias are different matters. Equally, professional competence does not, by itself, resolve questions about perceived independence. Electoral administration requires both the ability to perform the work and the judgement to exercise authority without favour. The public is entitled to expect evidence of both.

The same test must apply under every government. An association considered troubling when one party governs cannot become irrelevant when another takes office. Consistent scrutiny protects institutions from becoming extensions of political rivalry. It also gives appointees a fair basis on which to establish their credibility.

President John Dramani Mahama’s statement that he expects no preferential treatment for himself, his party or his government provides a clear benchmark.

His assurance that the commission must remain independent is welcome. Its significance, however, will depend on whether that position is respected when electoral decisions inconvenience those in power.

In practice, government should respect the commission’s operational judgement, support its work without seeking political advantage and accept that equal treatment may produce unwelcome outcomes. The commission, for its part, should neither seek presidential approval for its decisions nor treat presidential assurances as sufficient proof of its independence.

The new deputies can help establish confidence by making transparency routine. Significant procedural changes should be explained before implementation, with clear reasons, accessible information and sufficient opportunity for stakeholders to raise concerns. Where decisions are contested, the commission should explain the evidence and rules that informed them.

Engagement with political parties should follow predictable arrangements. Access to information, opportunities for consultation and responses to legitimate enquiries should not depend on political influence. Equal engagement does not require accepting every demand; it requires listening fairly and explaining why proposals are accepted or rejected.

Potential conflicts of interest should also be handled openly through appropriate disclosure and clear arrangements for managing them. These are practical safeguards the institution should strengthen, rather than grounds for assuming misconduct. Where an official’s previous relationships raise reasonable questions, a credible explanation is more useful than dismissing all criticism as partisan hostility.

Public perception matters because elections require broad acceptance of the process. Yet perception must not become a substitute for evidence. The commission should correct misinformation promptly, acknowledge genuine mistakes and distinguish between unfounded accusations and concerns that warrant investigation. Defensiveness can deepen suspicion; clear answers can reduce it.

Trust is also built through reliable administration long before polling day. Accurate records, prepared staff, dependable logistics and accessible procedures give voters tangible reasons for confidence. Transparency has limited value if the underlying work is poor, just as competent work loses credibility when important decisions remain unexplained.

Other institutions and electoral participants have responsibilities too. Political parties should challenge decisions with evidence. Civil society should scrutinise procedures consistently. The media should verify claims and distinguish allegations from findings. Citizens should be able to question the process without being encouraged to distrust it on unsupported grounds.

Those shared duties do not diminish the commission’s particular responsibility. It exercises authority over a process through which citizens choose their leaders, and its leadership must provide the clearest demonstration of fairness.

Agbenyo and Asamoah should be given the opportunity to perform their duties, alongside sustained and even-handed scrutiny. The standard is straightforward: impartial conduct, transparent decisions, consistent treatment and credible elections. Their stewardship should be judged by how reliably they meet it.