Fraud Prevention and Security Consultant, Richard Kumadoe, has expressed concerns regarding the vetting process for ministerial nominees.
He raised issues with the use of the term “vetting” itself, as well as the public questioning of nominees for sensitive positions, such as defense and interior. According to Mr. Kumadoe, this could pose a risk to national security.
He has called for a thorough review of the vetting process and emphasized the need for the committee to be cautious when asking nominees about matters related to national security.
” What is it really we want to cure? Is it political fraud? Is it criminality in politics? I feel like it has become a platform for political bravado and people taking advantage to abuse others and to do and to say all manner of things that do not enure to the benefit of the country. We copied it directly from the Americans, which they have the capacity of the FBI doing many things.
“When you go to countries like Britain, they don’t exert their ministers. And I don’t know why we do it. Even if we want to do it, I remember 4 years ago, I raised an alarm about , and that could be extended to the minister of defense, the business, and the minister of interior”
“These guys command portfolios that some of the things they may border on national sovereignty and national security interest. The nominees within those specific areas, interior and defense need to be cautioned that when we ask you questions about this on national security or national interest, you haven’t been to the ministry yet, and you are not obliged to answer all the questions. Those are centers on national security and national sovereignty. You may decide not to enter. Then again, one of the things we have done with this public hearing we are calling vetting is that we made it so ceremonial.
So people follow the nominees, their chiefs, and pastors, and all manner of people, friends and loved ones. We don’t educate them what is expected of them and what is required of them. “
