Global InfoAnalytics has defended its ranking of underperforming Members of Parliament, insisting that the findings reflect constituents’ opinions and are not an assessment of MPs’ developmental projects.

The clarification follows criticism from the Member of Parliament for Nhyiaeso, Stephen Amoah, who described the ranking as misleading and questioned the methodology used.

Speaking to Class News, the Chief Executive Officer of Global InfoAnalytics, Mussa Dankwah, said the survey was conducted using a scientific approach with randomly selected respondents asked to rate the performance of their MPs based on indicators such as “excellent,” “very good,” and “good”.

He explained that the exercise was not intended to measure the number of projects executed by MPs or their personal interventions in their constituencies but rather to capture public perception of their performance.

“We did not go there to assess what appears the way he has done as an MP. We were not there for an appraisal. We were just there to sample public opinion and the opinions of his constituents,” Mussa  Dankwah stated.

He noted that the same methodology was applied in assessing other public officials including the President with rankings based on the proportion of respondents who gave positive ratings.

He urged MPs who disagree with the findings to engage their constituents directly to understand their expectations and areas where they need to improve.

Mussa Dankwah stressed that effective representation goes beyond development projects, noting that MPs must also communicate regularly with constituents and respond to their concerns.

“You must find out from them what their expectations are for you, then you will know how to meet them.”