In a recent Facebook post, former Auditor-General Daniel Yaw Domelevo, has called for significant reforms in the country’s appointment process, specifically regarding the interview structure.
He expressed concern over the inconsistencies observed during interviews for nominated candidates, urging the appointment committee to adopt a standardized format.
“I respectfully urge the appointment committee to establish a standardized format for interviewing candidates to reduce inconsistencies in the process,” Domelevo stated, emphasizing the need for fairness and transparency.
His comments were driven by his observations of stark discrepancies in how long different nominees were interviewed. According to Domelevo, while some candidates were subjected to interviews lasting over four hours, others were granted only a fraction of that time—less than thirty minutes.
This imbalance, Domelevo pointed out, creates an unfair advantage for some candidates, potentially undermining the integrity of the process. “It is concerning to witness one nominee being interviewed for over four hours while another is allotted less than thirty minutes,” he said.
This is not the first time questions about fairness and transparency have surfaced in Ghana’s political and appointment processes.
Many citizens and stakeholders have long advocated for more structured and equitable procedures that ensure the right people are appointed to crucial government roles based on merit and competence.
Domelevo, a respected figure in Ghana’s public service, also offered suggestions for improvement. He proposed that each member of the interview panel be given a maximum of ten minutes to ask their questions.
The aim, according to him, is to maintain focus on the strategic and policy-related aspects of the candidates’ qualifications.
“The panel should take this opportunity to focus on strategic and policy-related questions, as well as to evaluate the necessary skills and competencies for the position,” he explained.
This approach, he argued, would allow for more comprehensive and relevant discussions, helping to evaluate candidates on the core aspects of their potential performance rather than wasting time on trivial matters.
