On 9 October, President Kwame Nkrumah swore in two new Deputy Chairpersons of the Electoral Commission (EC). The appointments, like most in sensitive state institutions, were met with both jubilation and criticism, depending on political leanings.
Amid the flurry of accusations and counter‑accusations, the word “neutrality” resurfaced repeatedly. One side argued the EC needs a neutral umpire, while the other claimed the appointees were as neutral as anyone could be. The author of a recent commentary argues that no adult can truly be neutral, as upbringing, experiences and socialisation inevitably shape opinions.
He distinguishes neutrality—a state of mind that cannot be audited—from objectivity, a discipline of fair‑minded action that can be measured. “Objectivity concerns what you do with the evidence placed before you, which everyone can scrutinise,” the piece states. The author uses examples such as football referees and judges to illustrate that while personal loyalties may exist, professional conduct must be impartial.
The commentary warns that selective invocation of neutrality, depending on which side an appointee appears to favour, erodes public trust. “A standard that applies only to your opponents is not a standard at all. It is a tactic,” it notes.
Instead of demanding blank‑slate neutrality, the author calls for judging EC officials by their conduct: transparency, consistency, willingness to rule against presumed favourites, and openness to scrutiny.
As the EC prepares to oversee upcoming elections, the debate over neutrality versus objectivity will likely intensify, shaping public perception of the commission’s credibility.
