A Fellow at the Ghana Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), Dr John Osae-Kwapong, says the political appointment of heads of key state institutions makes it difficult for the public to separate administrative actions from partisan politics.

Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express on Wednesday, he said the challenge becomes even greater when institutions investigate or prosecute politically exposed persons or high-profile party figures.

Responding to comments by NDC legal team member Abraham Amaliba, Dr Osae-Kwapong said the concern over whether state institutions are acting administratively or politically is a legitimate one.

“Amaliba of the NDC legal team raises a good point on how you separate administrative behaviour of state institutions from the politics,” he said.

“The only challenge there is that the heads of these institutions are politically appointed. When there is a turnover election, you do see some turnover in who is appointed as heads of these institutions.”

According to him, whenever cases involve former government officials or senior party figures, they add another layer of complexity, making it difficult for citizens to view the actions of state institutions as purely administrative.

“When the cases involve these high-profile or these politically exposed persons, either a very prominent party official or they may have served in government, all of those things throw in another range and another dynamic that makes it challenging to think of this purely as state administrative behaviour,” he said.

Dr Osae-Kwapong acknowledged that if questionable administrative conduct becomes consistent, reforms should be considered. However, he argued that the political nature of appointments continues to shape public perception.

“It also has that political dimension to it that lends itself easily for bystanders to read political meaning into the actions of these administrative officials in our state institutions,” he said.

“That, for me, would continue, or at least is the tension that we have to find a way to reconcile.”

He questioned how appointing authorities can avoid becoming politically exposed because of the conduct of officials they appoint but may not have directed.

“How do we prevent making the appointing authority politically vulnerable to the actions of a state actor that yes he may have appointed, but may not even have sanctioned those behaviours,” he asked.

On the issue of accountability, Dr Osae-Kwapong rejected the suggestion that responsibility rests with only one individual.

“I think there are multiple layers of accountability in all of this,” he said.

He argued that an appointing authority has a duty to reassess leadership decisions if there is a pattern of conduct that violates the Constitution.

“If I have made someone the head, the administrative head of a state institution, but I’m seeing a repeated behaviour of things that offends the Constitution, then as the appointing authority, one of the lines of accountability is to say maybe I need to rethink that decision,” he said.

He added that officials who directly supervise such institutions also have a responsibility to intervene when actions are improper or unconstitutional.

“But again, it goes back to because we tend to see these things become highly visible because of the persons involved, because it also seems to follow a pattern of turnover elections, that it becomes difficult to separate the administrative issues from the political issues,” he concluded.