Make grilling of public officers a serious query on ability, integrity

The public vetting of public officers was one of the exciting innovations introduced by the 2010 Constitution. The vetting was not only intended to ensure we obtained most suitable choices for public servants but was also meant to emphasize the point that such officers were servants of the public.

The latter was therefore entitled to participate in their assessment, both directly and through their elected representatives. At a technical level, the vetting was supposed to measure at least three "suitability" tests.

Firstly, the candidate's compliance with integrity requirements as set out in the Constitution and applicable laws. To facilitate the measurement of this facet, the public were permitted to provide any prejudicial information to the vetting panel so that the applicant or nominee could be taken to task. Secondly, it was meant to evaluate the intellectual rigour of the applicants. The measurement included both educational and professional certification and evidence of capacity as demonstrated by previous accomplishments and the candidate's versatility during the interviews.

Finally, the interviews were supposed to test suitability for the responsibility in question. Twelve years into the new dispensation, an assessment of the vetting process in these three parameters discloses varying levels of successes. On integrity assessment, I believe this train long left the station. In the initial years of vetting, the public were active in sending prejudicial information so that it could be used to challenge candidates' integrity. Interviewing panels were very insistent on clarifying any questionable issues of integrity. That level of inquiry has since been left solely to the vetting of judges. Judges have lost opportunity for appointment or promotion by virtue of questionable integrity. Indeed a few have lost office due to verifiable integrity claims.

In respect of other offices, this is now a mere formality not meant to accomplish anything. Whether the questions are routine or substantial, the responses are nonchalant; everyone knows there is no serious commitment to Chapter 6 compliance.

It was interesting for example that while people were questioned about their wealth, which was understandably substantial, there was no serious query on sources of wealth even for public servants whose wealth had grown exponentially between this vetting and the last one. The public has also given up on raising any issues unless they have been "sponsored". However, I still believe there is a residual positive point to this aspect of questioning. I know several people who have refused to apply for "publicly vettable" jobs so their integrity issues do not arise.

On intellectual rigour, vetting panels have tended to either overly presume educational certification as an indicator of intellectual capacity or rubbish academic qualifications as a test of intellectual competence.

Panels either treat degrees as the ultimate evidence of intellectual brilliance or dismiss educational certification as if it doesn't matter if one went to school. The answer lies somewhere in the middle.

Formal education is a good measure not just of intellectual ability, but school also expands one's world view and is a good measure of personal discipline. Life is much larger than academic certificates, even though they are an essential starting point. On suitability, vetting panels seem unprepared and unsure on what they are looking for. I was amused by how the Cabinet Secretary interviews were conducted on this question.

While interviewers asked tough questions on people's upcoming dockets, they seemed uninformed on the issues they were raising and so let simple or unprocessed responses slide without interrogation. Some follow up questions were pitiful. It would be good for our legislators to watch the vetting of Cabinet Secretaries in a similar presidential system, the US. Congressional vetting panels engage from a point of information and no candidate dares come with flippant answers as I witnessed in some candidates this week.

That said, the vetting process provides good infotainment in an otherwise boring news cycle.

We get to see our leaders embarrassed and squiggle under embarrassing and sometimes annoying questioning. But more than ever I am convinced that unless reformed, the process as designed and carried out, except for judges, is no longer fit for purpose.