Calls for the introduction of formal Key Performance Indicators for ministers and government appointees in Ghana have drawn the attention of a leading political analyst, who says the growing public demand reflects deep frustration with officials entrusted with driving the country’s development agenda, and warns that the entrenchment of political appointments as personal sinecures rather than national service obligations is actively retarding Ghana’s progress.
Prof. Baffour Agyemang-Duah, speaking in an interview with The High Street Journal, said the growing calls reflect a deeper public sentiment rather than a straightforward policy prescription.
He noted that while the assessment of ministers and public officials remains a matter of presidential discretion in most countries, the public demand for structured accountability frameworks signals that citizens feel that discretion is not being exercised with sufficient rigour.
He described the calls as a likely expression of popular dissatisfaction rather than a settled governance solution, observing that politicians are not ordinarily subjected to formal performance indicators in most jurisdictions.
“It may reflect their frustrations,” he said, “either because those appointed don’t have what it takes to do the job they’ve been assigned to, or they are simply not capable of performing.”
Prof. Agyemang-Duah argued that the accountability deficit runs in both directions, and that both the presidency and individual appointees must take performance obligations seriously. He called on presidents to act decisively when appointees fall short, noting that any leader genuinely committed to fulfilling a national mandate and leaving a credible legacy should be quick to remove those “not carrying out his agenda.”
He was equally direct with appointees, urging them to cultivate a personal culture of accountability, one in which honest self-assessment precedes public pressure or political intervention.
“When you are given a job, and you know that you cannot measure up to the job, you yourself should save the president,” he said. Appointees, he added, must “have the courage to say, look, I can not cut this one, so please have your job.”
“They have the authority to appoint, and they also have the authority to depose,” Prof. Agyemang-Duah said, stressing that presidents must use performance as the primary basis for retaining or removing officials, while appointees must hold themselves to the same standard independently of whether the president acts.
Part of the problem, he noted, lies in how political appointments are perceived in Ghana. Many individuals approach public office not as an opportunity for national service but as “perhaps the sole means of sustenance”, a financial lifeline rather than a responsibility.
This mindset, he argued, makes it exceedingly difficult for appointees to acknowledge failure or step aside voluntarily, since doing so would mean forfeiting what they regard as their primary source of income and security.
The consequences for national development, he warned, are significant. Officials who lack the competence for their roles but remain in post, shielded by political loyalty rather than assessed on performance, end up serving out full terms with little to show for it.
“They serve for four years, eight years,” he said, “and in the end, there’s nothing to account for in terms of their deliverables.” He argued that this pattern is among the structural reasons Ghana continues to struggle with its development objectives, with capable governance being repeatedly undermined by mismatched appointments that go unchallenged.
Prof. Agyemang-Duah’s remarks come as countries around the world, including Ghana, reassess mechanisms for strengthening executive accountability. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced his resignation on Monday, stepping down after losing the confidence of much of his parliamentary party, making him the sixth UK prime minister to resign outside Downing Street in seven years.
Equatorial Guinea’s government similarly made headlines recently after submitting a resignation tied to its inability to meet performance targets. Prof. Agyemang-Duah referenced both developments as evidence of a shifting global governance culture, one intolerant of leaders and officials who cannot account for their stewardship.
He described the British political system as particularly instructive, noting that when a prime minister’s parliamentary majority withdraws its confidence, the culture compels departure and a structured transition, a dynamic Ghana has yet to replicate at any level of political appointment. Japan was also cited as a governance environment where ministerial scandals routinely trigger voluntary resignation without the need for external compulsion or prolonged public pressure.
By contrast, Prof. Agyemang-Duah observed that in over three decades of Ghana’s Fourth Republic, voluntary ministerial resignation has been a rarity. He said he could not readily identify any public official who had “publicly resigned, admitting that, look, I couldn’t do the job”, a reflection, he argued, of a political culture that has yet to internalise the principle that public office is a trust, not a tenure.
He called for a conscious change in the national mindset, one anchored in the understanding that serving the public interest is the sole legitimate justification for holding office, and that an inability to deliver on that mandate warrants withdrawal, not retention. “It’s a culture we need to encourage,” Prof. Agyemang-Duah said, “for public officials to know that they go to serve the public interest, and when they cannot meet that service, they should save the nation by simply withdrawing and doing something else.”
