Mixed messaging on EC appointments risks public trust, warns legal expert Victoria Bright

International corporate lawyer Victoria Bright has raised serious concerns about the messaging surrounding Afi Agbenyo's appointment as Deputy Chairperson of Ghana's Electoral Commission, arguing that explaining the appointment in terms of achieving political balance sends deeply conflicting signals about the institution's independence and impartiality.

Speaking on JoyNews' Newsfile programme, Ms Bright acknowledged President John Mahama's welcome assurance that the new EC leadership must remain neutral and impartial, neither favouring his government nor the National Democratic Congress (NDC). However, she expressed alarm that this pledge sits uncomfortably with justifications framed around political equilibrium, potentially creating public doubt about whether the Commission can operate free from partisan influence.

The tension between rhetoric and reality

Ms Bright's critique centres on a fundamental inconsistency in how the government has communicated the appointment decision. Whilst the President has emphasised the need for impartiality, other explanations have focused on "tilting the balance"—language that inevitably invites questions about political calculation.

"You can't have an assurance of neutrality on one hand and then an explanation based on tilting parties and balance on the other," Ms Bright stated. She stressed that such messaging, regardless of Ms Agbenyo's professional credentials or the technical merits of her appointment, creates an interpretive framework through which the public will judge future EC decisions. Even if Ms Agbenyo acts with complete integrity, the government has effectively handed critics a narrative lens suggesting political motivation.

Ms Bright was careful to emphasise she was not accusing President Mahama of deliberately creating problems, but rather highlighting how inconsistent public communication can damage institutional credibility. This distinction matters: the legal expert's concern is not necessarily about whether procedures were followed correctly, but about how the appointment has been publicly explained.

Why it matters for Ghana

Ghana's Electoral Commission sits at the heart of democratic integrity. Public confidence in its impartiality is essential for accepting election results and maintaining peaceful transfers of power. When appointments to such institutions are publicly justified using political language, it reinforces perceptions that the Commission serves partisan interests rather than democratic principles.

This carries particular weight in Ghana's context, where debates over EC independence have featured prominently in recent political cycles. If the government appears to be making appointments based on political balance rather than institutional strengthening, it risks validating accusations it previously levelled at predecessor administrations. Ms Bright highlighted this irony: if the government criticised previous EC appointments for weakening independence, it should strengthen safeguards for impartial judgment rather than repeat the same approach in reverse.

The concern also extends to the appointees themselves. By framing their appointment through a political lens, the government has created an unnecessary burden—even well-intentioned decisions may face public scrutiny coloured by suspicions of partisan motivation.

Transparency and institutional process

Ms Bright called for greater transparency regarding the Council of State's role in assessing candidates, including what criteria were applied and whether recent political activities were properly disclosed and evaluated. She stressed this was not to suggest procedural breaches, but to emphasise that public understanding of decision-making processes is crucial for institutional legitimacy.

Her recommendations centre on consistency: government and relevant institutions must communicate appointment decisions in ways that reinforce, rather than undermine, public confidence in independence. The optics of institutional appointments matter as much as the technical merits, particularly when public trust remains fragile.