International corporate lawyer Victoria Bright has criticised the explanation that Afi Agbenyo’s appointment as Deputy Chairperson of the Electoral Commission (EC) was intended to “tilt the balance”, warning that it could undermine public confidence in the Commission’s independence.
She said the justification appeared inconsistent with President John Dramani Mahama’s assurance that the new EC leadership must remain impartial and must not favour his government or the governing National Democratic Congress (NDC).
Speaking in an interview, Ms Bright welcomed the President’s call for neutrality but warned that references to political balance could create doubts about whether political considerations influenced the appointments.
“The President’s instruction that neither his government nor his party should receive preferential treatment is very welcome,” she said.
“But government must speak consistently because an assurance of neutrality sits uneasily alongside an explanation based on tilting parties and balance.”
Ms Bright clarified that she was not blaming President Mahama for creating a problem but was concerned about the conflicting messages surrounding the appointment.
“I’m not saying that the President has caused any problems. What I’m saying, I did say that his comments were very welcome.”
She argued that describing the appointment as an effort to balance political influence could lead the public to question the independence of the EC and place unnecessary pressure on the new appointees.
“If government believes that previous appointments weakened the EC’s independence, it should strengthen the safeguards that protect independent judgement,” she said.
“Because, for me, appointments intended to adjust partisan influence will now be risking and entrenching the very problem that the government previously condemned.”
She added that such explanations could cause the public to judge the appointees’ decisions based on perceived political motives rather than their actual conduct.
“Even if Miss Agbenyo is determined to act impartially, government has now supplied the political purpose against which people may judge their decisions.”
Council of State’s role
Ms Bright also called for greater scrutiny of the Council of State’s advisory role in the appointment process, questioning the criteria used to assess candidates and whether their recent political activities had been considered.
“I think the Council of State must also feature in this discussion, to be honest, because its advisory role is an important part of the constitutional process,” she said.
“What criteria were used? And were recent campaign roles disclosed and evaluated? How were concerns about public confidence addressed?”
However, she stressed that she was not alleging any breach of constitutional or procedural requirements, acknowledging that she had no access to the Council of State’s deliberations or records.
“I don’t know what criteria they used. I don’t know whether concerns about public confidence were addressed. And I’m not even suggesting that we’ve established any procedural breach,” she said.
Her concern, she explained, was the potential damage to public confidence in the EC.
“All I’m saying is that the public, the optics don’t look good,” she added.
Bright calls for EC appointment reforms
Ms Bright urged the government and relevant institutions to use the controversy as an opportunity to improve the appointment process.
She said publishing clear selection criteria would promote transparency, reduce political disputes and help the public understand how candidates were assessed.
“We should use this recurring controversy to improve the appointment process,” she said.
“Maybe the criteria should be published in future to stop all this.”
