Ghana's Executive Director of the Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA), Sulemana Braimah, has questioned the nation's commitment to fighting corruption. He stated that the continuous establishment of anti-corruption institutions has not stopped the problem from growing.
Mr. Braimah's remarks came during a discussion on JoyNews' Newsfile, following the Office of the Special Prosecutor's (OSP) decision to name five persons of interest in an alleged $1 million bribery case. This case is linked to the Accelerated Social Housing and Affordable Housing Project (ASKA). He argued that Ghana's current approach to combating corruption requires serious reconsideration.
This critique comes at a time when public trust in state institutions remains a critical issue for Ghana's economic stability and investor confidence. Persistent corruption can deter foreign direct investment and inflate the cost of public projects, impacting the national budget. Ghana's ranking in global corruption perception indices often reflects these challenges, underscoring the need for effective governance mechanisms. The perceived lack of accountability can also affect domestic revenue mobilization, as citizens may be less willing to comply with tax obligations if they believe funds are misused.
Mr. Braimah pointed out that Ghana already had several institutions tasked with tackling corruption before the OSP's establishment. These include the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC), the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service, and the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ). Despite these existing bodies, corruption remains a significant national problem.
He noted that the OSP was partly created due to limitations in existing institutions, particularly their ability to independently prosecute corruption cases. For instance, CHRAJ, despite its constitutional independence, has faced capacity constraints affecting its ability to handle corruption matters effectively. These limitations often prevent such bodies from pursuing prosecutions, leaving a gap in the enforcement chain.
Mr. Braimah also questioned the independence of a Special Prosecutor appointed by the President, regardless of the political party in power. He highlighted that such an appointment might not automatically guarantee the independence needed to investigate and prosecute corruption cases, especially those involving members of the governing party. He used a hypothetical scenario involving a political transition, suggesting that a presidential appointment might compromise the prosecutor's impartiality.
The core issue, according to Mr. Braimah, extends beyond the OSP's structure to Ghana's broader attitude towards corruption. He emphasized that the public is increasingly looking for tangible results from investigations, not just press conferences or public announcements. Ghanaians expect prosecutions and convictions where wrongdoing is established, justifying the resources allocated to these institutions.
Mr. Braimah expressed concern about the OSP's limited impact after several years of operation. He acknowledged a five-month period of inactivity for the office but noted that the current Special Prosecutor, Kissi Agyebeng, has been in office for a considerably longer period, approximately 55 months after accounting for the inactive period. He struggled to identify significant results that would convince him of the OSP's effectiveness in improving Ghana's fight against corruption. This lack of visible impact undermines public confidence and raises questions about the return on investment for these critical governance bodies.