“If people learn to take charge of change and guide it well, all of humanity is the beneficiary. If we fail, we invite disaster. What an exciting and wonderful challenge to our intelligence and our compassion and so our dedication to the proposition that betterment of the individual is the noblest of all dreams.” George Chaplin. Parliament has always complained that it has never received the necessary recognition and co-operation from the public. That is why it becomes imperative that whenever the opportunity is offered, Members of Parliament must do all they can to assert the independence of the House and fight to protect its integrity. Parliament is currently vetting nominees of Prof. John Evans Atta Mills for appointment as Ministers of State. The vetting process, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, is not a term of art. Therefore, the style of one appointment committee and its chairman, may differ from one Parliament to the other. But, whatever it is, members must be seen to present a dignified face of the House. The vetting process is a mandatory obligation. It is one of the core functions of Parliament. Just as the President is free to nominate anybody he deems fit, so also must Parliament take full responsibility for the vetting. Therefore, where a nominee appears to Parliament not to be suitable, that should not be ignored for whatever reason. The public must equally be educated to appreciate that the fact that the President has nominated somebody does not mean that the nominees must by hook or crook be approved. The nomination is an obligation imposed on the President, while the approval is a responsibility for Parliament. None of these is subservient to the other. So, let the President make the nominations and Parliament the approvals. The approval is more important than the nomination and that is why our MPs must not be stampeded in discharging such an onerous responsibility. More importantly, the Chairman of the Appointment Committee must be seen to be protecting the integrity of Parliament rather than defending the interest of nominees. William Shakespeare and Charles R. Swindoll have charged those who exercise responsibility on behalf of the people to do so with caution and responsibly, mindful of the fact that these are privileges for which they may be called upon to account. Shakespeare in King Lear states that "Time shall unfold what plighted cunning hides; who covers faults at last with shame derides", and that "All friends shall taste the wages of their virtue and all foes the cap of their deservings." Swindoll on the other hand postulates that "a commitment to excellence is neither popular nor easy. But, it is essential. Excellence in integrity and morality as well as ethics and scholarship. Excellence in physical fitness and spiritual fervour, just as much as excellence in relationships and craftsmanship. A commitment to excellence touches the externals of appearance, communication and products; just as much as the internals of attitude, vision, taste, humour, compassion, determination and zest for life." The South Commission has also pointed out that "politics in the management of development cannot be wished away. But if it is to be creative, it must be an instrument for purposeful social change rather than a ticket to power and privilege or another lucrative profession". But for exchanges between the Minority and the Chairman of the Appointments Committee over Alhaji Mohammed Mumuni, the vetting has been bi-partisan. Both sides got on well. Thus, the public expectation was that consensus could have been reached on Saturday, February 7 when the committee suspended its sitting before he appeared on Monday. As it turned out, an unseeming scene was created, which saw the exercise of the powers of the chairman brought into question and disrepute. Whereas the chairman insisted that Alhaji Mumuni could be questioned, except on the matters that were in court, the Minority held the view that until these matters were determined in court, the vetting should be deferred. It was something like legality against morality. The position of the law is not clear about the status of an audit report from the Auditor-General. Whereas the law gives power to the Auditor-General to disallow or surcharge public office holders for any expenditure he does not consider appropriate, Article 187 (9) states that "a person aggrieved by a disallowance or surcharge made by the Auditor-General may appeal to the High Court ... ". However, Article 94 (2) (d) provides that "A person shall not be qualified to be a member of Parliament if he has been found by the report of a commission or committee of inquiry to be incompetent to hold public office or is a person in respect of whom a commission or committee of inquiry has found that while being a public officer he acquired assets unlawfully or defrauded the state or misused or abused his office or wilfully acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the state and the findings have not been set aside on appeal or judicial review." On the other hand, Article 94 (4) provides that "For the purposes of paragraph (d) of Clause (2) of this Article in the case of any finding made by a commission or committee of inquiry which is not a judicial or quasi-judicial commission or committee of inquiry, without prejudice to any appeal against judicial review of that finding, the finding shall not have the effect of disqualifying a person under that paragraph unless it has been confirmed by a Government White Paper." Thus, if a report of the Auditor-General is like that of a commission or committee of inquiry, then it may not be a basis to disqualify the nominee for as long as no White Paper has been published on the adverse findings. That is where the problem lies. The fact is that there are some developments that are lawful, but which are not morally acceptable or ethical. Indeed, in their book The Virtuous Journalist, Stephen Klaidman and Tom Beauchamp argue that "a law-abiding person is not necessarily morally virtuous and If an act is legally acceptable, that fact alone does not make it morally acceptable". Therefore, it would have been prudent for the vetting of Alhaji Mumuni to have been deferred. A government that is ready to inform the public about an interim audit report on the Golden Jubilee celebration and mindful of the ire that the disclosures attracted from the public must be wary about nominating somebody against whom a final audit report had indicted, especially when the nominee has gone to court to challenge the report and redeem his name. As for the claim by the Chairman of the Appointments Committee that the adverse audit report was not before the committee it begs the question since the Auditor-General's report is a public document and the sole recipient of all such reports is Parliament. One nominee who excited the public, but who was not helped to endear herself fully to the public, was Mrs Betty Mould Iddrisu. Some of the interventions by the chairman, particularly at the point that she admitted she was hot, on the legality of the renewal of the Bawku and Gushiegu curfews by a representative who was not a Minister of State, did not help at all. After all, as the would-be chief legal adviser to the President, her response would have enlightened the public on the issue. She could have enchanted the public with an answer. After ditherings through encouragement by the chair, when she finally responded to the allegations that she had described the Ghanaian courts as kangaroo courts, she appealed to the public when she admitted that those were some of the spontaneous campaign platform talks that must always be contextualised. I am sure if she had been directed by the chairman to respond to the question on the legality of the curfew instrument, she would have either agreed to the suggestion or if she disagreed, she may have made reference to Article 295 (2) (a) to the extent that "In this Constitution and in any other law a reference to the holder of an office by the term designating his office, shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be construed as including a reference to a person for the time being lawfully acting in or performing the functions of that office." Either way, the public would have appreciated her better. Somehow, the chairman overruled the question and took away part of the shine from Mrs Betty Mould Iddrisu, an indisputably qualified person for the office of Attorney-General and Minister of Justice. Moving from the vetting the unnecessary acrimony generated by the withdrawal of the nomination of Mr Moses Asaga, including the fawning to get him reinstated, points to a sorry state as to the value we place on an MP as against a Minister of State. In many jurisdictions, MPs are the kingpins. Sadly for us, if you are not a Minister, you appear to be nothing and there are MPs who would fawn to get the nod for ministerial appointment. That feeling is seen even through the vetting process with MPs congratulating their colleagues who have been nominated for ministerial positions. We need to get things clear, as MPs better represent the interest of the people than Ministers, whose obligation is not to the people but the President. People are outraged that MPs have been given GH¢20, OOO as rent advance for two years. The same people would not be bothered about the fact that Ministers would be accommodated in houses owned by the State in prime locations some of which could be rented for about GH¢3,OOO monthly. We have to rethink the value we place on our MPs. Left to me, we need to pay the MP better and higher than the Ministers of State. That is one of the most effective ways to make MPs place the national interest above their parties. After all, the major qualification to be appointed a Minister of State is to be elected as MP. All those unqualified to be MPs, cannot be Ministers. So, who is more important, the MP or Minister of State? Turning to some disturbing developments in the country, particularly the disturbances at Agbogbloshie, Accra and Ashaiman, President John Evans Atta Mills must show the same interest and concerns that informed him to call for investigations into the Baba Yara Stadium deaths after the Kotoko-Hearts Glo Premier League match. The human rights of those sports fans are no more nor less than the victims of Agbogbloshie or Ashaiman. Finally, in the interest of transparency and openness, the people of Ghana deserve to be told how much was spent on members of the Transitional Team. This would help kill rumours flying around that a certain sum was paid per sitting to the committee members. Equity demands that those who pursue transparency and probity must demonstrate such virtues. That is the essence of Freedom of Information Legislation, and in the words of Prof. Ken McKinnon, Chairman of the Australian Press Council, "Ministers are often tempted to restrict or delay access to documents they believe will fuel political debate on contentious subjects. But that game fosters leaks and uninformed comments, including hyperbolic media attacks. A mere rational response would be more openness. The Press Council believes that open political and social discourse is of such importance in a democracy that better access to information and more workable legislation and practices should be among society's prime objectives." Thus, if Parliament is listening, then we must be told where it got funds to settle the ex gratia for MPs, since the Controller and Accountant-General insists his office has not released any funds for that purpose. A word to the wise is enough. Credit: Yaw Boadu-Ayeboafoh, Daily Graphic