Former Auditor-General Daniel Yaw Domelevo has expressed concerns over the nature of questions posed to ministerial nominees during vetting, arguing that the process should focus on competence rather than trivialities.

Speaking on Joy News' PM Express on Wednesday, he stated that the primary objective of an appointment interview is to ensure that the nominee is fit for the position and possesses the necessary skills to discharge their duties effectively.

“My thinking is that in allotting time and asking questions, we must be strategic enough to tease out the competencies that we require,” he stressed.

“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 Minister of Agriculture, you must be able to prove that you understand the sector. That is what I expect.”

His comment highlights growing concerns over the effectiveness of the ministerial vetting process, as calls for reforms to ensure competency-based questioning continue to mount.

Mr Domelevo also criticised the excessive length of some interviews, arguing that prolonged questioning does not necessarily yield better insights.

“I have worked in international organizations, but I have never seen the President of the World Bank being interviewed for four and a half hours. That is excessive,” he stated.

“Too many questions are not necessary for someone who will be running a whole ministry. We need questions that will tease out the nominee’s competence, not dive into what I would describe as trivialities.”

He questioned the inconsistency in the time allocation for different ministries, noting that some nominees face intense scrutiny while others are barely questioned.

“I would like to say that my concern is, how important is that ministry that they spend just 10 minutes on it? Is it that the ministry is so unimportant that one nominee gets four and a half hours while another is done in just 10 minutes? If we get a minister who does not perform—God forbid—who do we blame?”

Having chaired high-level appointment panels himself, Domelevo called for strict rules to regulate questioning.

“Many times, questions are repeated, which should not be allowed. In international practice, part of the chair’s job is to disallow irrelevant questions,” he explained.

“The chair should say, ‘That question has already been answered, let’s move on.’ This ensures we get the benefit of a structured interview.”

He also pointed out the lack of proper advertisement for public input on nominees, calling for a more serious and strategic approach.

“In a situation where we are even being told that there was no advertisement for public input, we need to be more serious, more strategic,” he insisted.

“I wouldn’t want to pick on individuals, but when I hear someone quizzing a nominee on their membership in the Knights of Marshall, I ask myself, ‘How relevant is that to the position they are going to occupy?’”