Looks like very many of my compatriots are surprised by and disappointed with Mrs. Charlotte Osei's leadership of the Electoral Commission. I do not know why you are all so surprised or disappointed? What in the background of this chairman at the time of her appointment, or about the manner of her appointment, might have given you cause to think she was suitable, including in temperament and judgment (as opposed to being minimally qualified academically), for this hugely important national office?

I remember all the fulsome praise some of you were quick to shower on her even before the ink had dried on her appointment. One very opinionated and respectable journalist went so far as to say, after Mrs. Osei's first media interview as EC chair, that she was the best person for the job and those who disagreed with or sought to question her appointment did not have the best interest of Ghana at heart. Yes, we who had the audacity to question her suitability or the process of her selection were all a bunch of unpatriotic citizens. What was the basis of such a rash and strangely outrageous judgement other than the fact that Mrs. Osei showed herself in her maiden media interview as one capable of stringing words together to form complete, grammatically correct sentences in English and deliver them with lawyerly ease? How do you tell who is the most suitably qualified person for a job when you do not know of any other candidates for that position? We are too easily taken in by the superficial.

The sort of nonsense that is coming from the leadership of the EC cannot be taken in isolation from the "process" by which appointments to those offices are made. When this particular office became vacant there were those of us who argued in favor of a transparent, competitive, and participatory process to find, first, a short list of suitable candidates who would then be interviewed and vetted by the Council of State, prior to a recommendation being made to the President for appointment. For me personally, even that proposed process is suboptimal. But in the face of a constitutional gap and emerging opaque appointment practice, I saw the proposed alternative as a sensible way to breathe meaningful transparency and credibility into the appointment to such a critical office and ensure that the choice is not made on the basis of improper criteria or as the sole prerogative of an officeholder with a personal interest in the appointment.

Needless to say, our imperial President, acting, as usual, without let or hindrance from any quarter (except his "kitchen cabinet" presumably), proceeded to announce his unilateral appointment of Mrs Osei. Some of us happened to have learned that even his own Council of State was not in agreement with his choice. Civil society and journalists asked no searching questions about how or why the appointee had been picked; they, too, deferred characterically to the wisdom of the imperial President. Not even her record or performance in her last public office was examined. Soon there was the usual chorus to give the new chair "the benefit of the doubt"---one of those contemporary Ghanaian English language usages deployed to avoid intelligent and serious interrogation and critique of dubious official decisions and choices that affect us all.

So, an office that is charged by law with superintending and refereeing the free, fair, and impartial conduct of elections and the rules of political representation in Ghana, an office whose holder, once installed, holds office until he or she reaches the age of 70, was filled without any public input or scrutiny or even public foreknowledge of the appointee, and without any formal or transparent process save the unilateral say-so of the President. Such a mode of appointment, to so important and critical a public office, will produce a suitable selection only by the luck of the draw and to the extent the imperial President demonstrates sound judgment and good faith in ensuring the paramountcy of the public interest. It is not a sensible way to proceed in a matter of grave national import.

Yes, process matters. And if we do away with rational process and, instead, surrender every appointment to the unilateral prerogative of one man, as we have done with appointments to the EC, we should not be surprised that we only get to learn and know piecemeal about the suitability of a person for a particular public office not before but after they are already securely installed in office. By demanding no process and no direct or indirect public say in the selection of the chair of the EC, we deserve every bit of the nonsense the cocky Mrs. Osei has chosen to serve us on our plates. And yes, barring impeachment, she will be your Prima Donna at the EC until she turns 70. You ain't seen nothing yet.