The appointee for the deputy Judicial Chairperson, Pascal Akotia’s vetting was scheduled at 12:32 pm, but he was there at 12:25 pm. So his vetting started at exactly 12:32 pm.
However, unfortunately, this vetting was done after swearing-in of the appointees into office which is deemed unconstitutional.
“Should the vetting be boycotted because it was done before swearing-in?” The panel asked him.
“No come to think of this, this is the first panel of appointees, and the vetting committee should come from the panel of appointees. So in this case, I think it’s acceptable to be sworn in before the vetting. “ – Pascal said.
Meanwhile, the vetting started with various appointees being interviewed one after the other earlier in the morning.
Ankrah Derrick, an appointee for the executive transport committee. His vetting was initially scheduled at 3:42 pm but for some reason, he was vetted earlier.
“What’s the difference between departmental head and departmental executive?” – the panel asked.
“Departmental head is a lecturer whilst departmental executive is made up of students body “- Derrick said.
“Just two months to end the semester and the transport has no plans yet for students” he added.
Next was the appointee for deputy electoral commissioner. The vetting process started at 1:30 pm.
“If there is any problem concerning elections, I have to act as the electoral commission, but not an individual.” – she said.
The appointee for the second deputy women’s commissioner’s vetting started at exactly 1:55 pm.
The vetting process continued with the vetting of the appointee for the general secretary, which started at 2:35 pm.
“I’m unable to go in for positions even though I would like to because I’m shy” – the appointee said.
The whole vetting process was a success. The panellists intended to end the vetting at 5:30 pm. However, in the end, the vetting was very successful.
Report by Jeffrey Addy