Former Auditor General Daniel Yaw Domelevo has raised serious concerns over the inconsistencies in the time allocation for ministerial nominees during the vetting process.

Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express on Wednesday, he questioned why certain nominees are subjected to marathon questioning sessions lasting several hours, while others are given just 10 minutes before the committee.

“My thinking is that in allotting time, as well as asking questions, we must be strategic enough to be able to tease out of the nominees the competencies that we require,” Mr Domelevo emphasised.

“For instance, if you are going to occupy the office of the Minister of Finance, you must prove to the committee that you have what it takes to manage the country’s finances.

"If you are going to be the Agric Minister, you must be able to demonstrate your competence in that sector. That is what I expect.”

Mr Domelevo expressed his surprise at the revelation that the committee has rules in place that are not being followed.

“I was happy to hear the Speaker say that there are some rules that the committee is supposed to follow, but they are not following them. I really thought there were no rules. That’s why I was calling for a formula because, frankly, I have worked in international organisations, and I have not even seen the President of the World Bank being interviewed for four and a half hours. That is excessive,” he stated.

He questioned the logic behind spending hours questioning one nominee while others are given significantly less time.

“How important is that ministry that they spend just 10 minutes on? What can you possibly tease out of a nominee in just 10 minutes? Is it that this ministry is proportionately unimportant compared to the Finance Ministry, where a nominee is grilled for four and a half hours?”

He warned that if appointees fail in their roles, the committee should be held responsible for not thoroughly vetting them. “If we get a minister appointed by the President and they do not perform—God forbid, I know they will perform—but if they do not, who do we blame?”

Domelevo, who has chaired several high-level appointment committees, suggested a structured approach to the vetting process to ensure fairness and efficiency.

“The rules should be clear. When a nominee appears before the committee, they should be given two to three minutes for self-introduction. Every panel member should have a limited time to ask strategic questions. Imagine if the committee has 11 or more members, and each person spends 10 minutes—that’s already 110 to 120 minutes per nominee. That’s why I believe time should be managed better,” he suggested.

He also criticised the tendency for repetitive questioning, which prolongs the vetting unnecessarily.

“I remember hearing one nominee repeatedly saying, ‘I have answered this question before, but I will answer it again.’ The chairperson should have disallowed it—once a question has been answered, there’s no need to ask it again. In international practice, the job of the chair is to filter out redundant and irrelevant questions so that the process is effective.”

He lamented that in some instances, questions strayed from the core competencies required for the nominee’s role.

“I don’t want to pick on individuals, but I was shocked to hear someone being asked about their membership in the Knights of Marshall and their values. For crying out loud, how relevant is that to the position the person is going to occupy?” he asked.

Daniel Domelevo concluded by urging the committee to take the vetting process more seriously and strategically, ensuring that questions focus on the nominee’s qualifications and suitability for the role.

“This is not the time to focus on trivialities,” he stated.

“We need a structured, well-thought-out vetting process that ensures we have the right people in the right positions.”