Nothing tests the strength of a democracy quite like an election. Elections ignite hopes, heighten anxieties, expose political rivalries, and sometimes deepen national divisions.
Beyond determining who governs, they provide a peaceful mechanism for resolving political competition and confer legitimacy on those entrusted with public power.
But what happens when the very institution responsible for safeguarding the people’s mandate becomes the subject of political suspicion?
That is the uncomfortable question confronting Ghana as the controversy surrounding the appointment of two Deputy Electoral Commissioners by President John Dramani Mahama reignites debate about the independence, credibility and impartiality of the Electoral Commission (EC).
Why is the New Patriotic Party (NPP) so concerned about the appointments? Is its opposition rooted in legitimate institutional concerns, partisan calculations, or a mixture of both? And, more fundamentally, what do these political battles reveal about the independence of Ghana’s electoral management body?
These are questions that deserve more than partisan talking points. They demand a closer examination of the constitutional framework, the history of appointments to the Commission and the political circumstances that have shaped public perceptions of its neutrality.
THE INDEPENDENCE QUESTION: WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION REALLY GUARANTEE?
Ghana’s 1992 Constitution establishes the Electoral Commission as an independent constitutional body entrusted with responsibilities central to the country’s democratic survival.
Article 45 outlines the Commission’s functions, including the compilation of the voters’ register, the conduct and supervision of public elections and referenda, and voter education in collaboration with the National Commission for Civic Education (NCCE).
Article 43 provides for the composition of the Commission, while Article 46 expressly guarantees its independence by stipulating that, in the performance of its functions, the Commission shall not be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority.
On paper, the constitutional safeguards are clear. The EC is expected to operate independently, free from political interference and undue influence.
Yet constitutional guarantees and institutional realities are not always the same.
Article 70 gives the President a central role in appointing the Chairperson, Deputy Chairpersons and other members of the Commission, acting in consultation with the Council of State. Article 195 also establishes the President’s role in public-service appointments, subject to the constitutional provisions governing the relevant offices.
This arrangement raises an important institutional question: Can an electoral management body be perceived as completely independent when the President, who is also the leader of a political administration, plays a decisive role in appointing its top officials?
The question is not whether presidential appointment automatically makes an Electoral Commissioner partisan. It does not. Rather, the issue is whether the appointment process provides sufficient safeguards to inspire confidence across the political spectrum.
The absence of a parliamentary confirmation process for these appointments, for instance, limits the extent to which nominees are subjected to public scrutiny through a formal legislative vetting process.
Questions also arise about the Commission’s financial autonomy, administrative arrangements and the procedures governing appointments within the institution.
CHARLOTTE OSEI’S EXIT: THE CONTROVERSY THAT REFUSES TO DISAPPEAR
To understand the current debate, Ghana must revisit one of the most contentious episodes in the recent history of its Electoral Commission: the removal of Charlotte Osei and her two deputies in 2018.
Appointed in June 2015 under President John Dramani Mahama, Osei became the first woman to serve as Chairperson of Ghana’s Electoral Commission. Her tenure, however, was marked by tensions and controversy that culminated in her removal in June 2018 under President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo.
The removals followed an investigation initiated through a committee constituted under the authority of the then Chief Justice, Sophia Akuffo, after allegations of misconduct were raised against the Commission’s leadership. The officials were removed following the constitutionally prescribed process.
Nevertheless, the episode left a lasting political and institutional legacy.
For critics of the process, the circumstances surrounding the removal intensified concerns about the vulnerability of the Commission’s leadership to political developments at the highest levels of government. For others, the constitutional procedure demonstrated that even senior electoral officials were not beyond accountability.
The controversy became even more politically charged because the NPP, then in government, had previously been a vocal critic of Osei’s leadership while in opposition and profess her removal if they won the 2016 election.
That history inevitably raises a difficult question: Did the change in the Commission’s leadership strengthen public confidence in its independence, or did it deepen suspicions that the institution’s leadership could become entangled in partisan power struggles?
The answer cannot be established by political rhetoric alone. It requires evidence, institutional analysis and a careful assessment of the Commission’s conduct before, during and after elections.
FROM ONE LEADERSHIP TO ANOTHER: HAS THE TRUST DEFICIT BEEN RESOLVED?
Following the 2018 removals, President Akufo-Addo nominated Jean Adukwei Mensa as Electoral Commission Chairperson, alongside Samuel Tettey and Eric Bossman as Deputy Commissioners, and Adwoa Asuama Abrefa as another member. The new leadership was sworn into office on 1 August 2018.
The appointments marked a new chapter in the Commission’s history, but they did not end the broader debate about presidential influence over electoral administration.
The real test of an Electoral Commission is not simply the political identity of the appointing authority or the public reputation of its appointees. It is whether the institution consistently demonstrates impartiality, transparency, procedural fairness and accountability.
An electoral management body may act lawfully and still struggle to convince a section of the public that it is impartial. Equally, political accusations against the body do not, by themselves, establish that it has acted improperly.
This distinction is crucial.
In a highly competitive multiparty system such as Ghana’s, electoral decisions are routinely scrutinised through partisan lenses. An appointment that one party regards as administratively sound may be interpreted by another as politically consequential.
That is precisely why the appointment process must be sufficiently transparent to withstand suspicion, scrutiny and political disagreement.
THE TWO DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS: WHY THE POLITICAL TEMPERATURE?
The controversy surrounding the appointment of two Deputy Electoral Commissioners by President Mahama on Monday, October 12, 2026 raises a broader question about how Ghana manages the relationship between constitutional authority and public confidence. W
Why is the NPP raising concerns about the appointments of Emelia Affi Agbenyo and Joseph Kwaku Asamoah, PhD? What specific constitutional, procedural or substantive objections has the party advanced? Does it challenge the qualifications of the nominees, the appointment process, the potential implications for electoral administration, or the broader institutional arrangement?
These questions must be answered against the documented statements and the actual circumstances of the appointments.
The NPP’s position should not automatically be dismissed as partisan obstruction. Equally, its objections should not be accepted uncritically merely because they are presented as a defense of electoral independence.
A credible analysis must apply the same standard to every political party, whether in government or opposition.
If the party believes the appointments threaten the Commission’s neutrality, it must explain precisely how. If its concerns relate to the absence of adequate consultation, transparency or institutional safeguards, those arguments deserve serious public examination.
But if the objections are inconsistent with the party’s previous positions on presidential appointment powers, that inconsistency also deserves scrutiny.
The central issue is not simply who gets appointed. It is whether the process protects the Electoral Commission from partisan capture and gives Ghanaians compelling reasons to trust its decisions.
That is a national democratic concern, not the exclusive property of any political party.
BEYOND PARTISAN POLITICS: FOUR TESTS OF ELECTORAL INDEPENDENCE
The independence of the EC should be assessed against clear institutional criteria rather than the changing political interests of the parties.
First: Appointment and tenure. Are the procedures for appointing and removing commissioners sufficiently transparent and protected against arbitrary political influence? Do they inspire confidence among competing political parties and the wider public?
Second: Financial and administrative autonomy. Does the Commission have adequate control over the resources and administrative arrangements necessary to carry out its constitutional mandate without undue external pressure?
Third: Operational impartiality. Does the EC apply electoral laws, regulations and procedures consistently, irrespective of which party stands to benefit? Are its decisions explained clearly and communicated in a timely manner?
Fourth: Transparency and accountability. Does the Commission provide sufficient information to enable citizens, political parties, civil society organisations and independent observers to scrutinise its decisions? Are complaints handled fairly and through credible procedures?
These four tests provide a more meaningful framework for examining electoral independence than the political affiliations or perceived loyalties of individual commissioners.
They also provide a basis for assessing the Commission’s performance across elections, including the conduct of the 2020 polls.
Any claim that the EC favoured or disadvantaged a particular party must be supported by verifiable evidence, documented decisions and a defensible analysis of its actions. Suspicion alone cannot substitute for proof.
WHY PUBLIC CONFIDENCE MATTERS
The implications of this debate extend far beyond the appointment of Emelia Affi Agbenyo and Joseph Kwaku Asamoah, PhD.
The Electoral Commission of Ghana as it is in other civilised democracies derive much of their authority from public confidence in their impartiality. Their decisions must be respected not because they are immune from criticism, but because the institutions making those decisions are seen to operate according to fair and predictable rules.
When confidence deteriorates, even routine administrative decisions can become flashpoints for political confrontation. Voter registration, ballot administration, results collation and the declaration of winners may all attract heightened suspicion.
The danger is that persistent distrust can weaken the perceived legitimacy of electoral outcomes, regardless of whether particular decisions are legally defensible.
THE BIGGER QUESTION: WHO PROTECTS THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION FROM POLITICS?
Ultimately, the controversy over the appointment of the two Deputy Electoral Commissioners exposes a constitutional and democratic dilemma that Ghana has yet to resolve fully.
The Constitution guarantees the EC’s independence, but the process through which its leadership is appointed leaves room for continuing debate about the relationship between executive authority and electoral autonomy.
The answer is not necessarily to declare every presidential appointment illegitimate. Nor is it to dismiss every objection as political mischief.
Rather, Ghana must confront the institutional weaknesses and perceptions that allow electoral appointments to become recurring sources of partisan conflict.
Reforms could include greater transparency in the nomination process, clearly articulated and publicly accessible qualification criteria, stronger safeguards for tenure, and a more open framework for scrutinising nominees. Any proposed reform must be carefully designed to preserve the Commission’s independence rather than transfer political influence from one institution to another.
The ultimate objective should be to ensure that commissioners command confidence because of their competence, integrity and demonstrable impartiality—not merely because a particular government appointed them.
CONCLUSION: A TEST FOR GHANA’S DEMOCRACY
The NPP’s opposition to the two Deputy Commissioner appointments presents an opportunity to confront a question that transcends party politics: is Ghana doing enough to insulate its Electoral Commission from political influence and protect public confidence in its work?
The party must substantiate its objections. The government must demonstrate that the appointment process is constitutionally sound and institutionally defensible. The Electoral Commission must continue to uphold transparency, impartiality and accountability.
Above all, Ghanaians must insist that electoral institutions serve the Republic rather than the interests of the political parties that compete to govern it.
Because, in the final analysis, the credibility of an election is determined not only by the ballots cast or the results declared, but also by whether citizens have compelling reasons to believe that the institution overseeing the process has acted fairly.
The real battle, therefore, is bigger than two appointments. It is a battle for public trust, institutional independence and the future credibility of Ghana’s democracy.
