The Executive Director of Child Rights International (CRI), Bright Appiah, is reported calling on the government to come clear on its position regarding key social intervention programmes in the wake of the IMF bailout programme.

He has also asked the government to not allow any external pressure to make Ghana abandon any of its social intervention programmes, especially the Free Senior High School (FSHS) and the Livelihood Empowerment Programme (LEAP), as they helped many vulnerable groups.

For our discussion, we would like to define vulnerable groups as people who cannot protect or care for themselves due to physical or mental disabilities or age. Viewed against the definition of vulnerable people, Mr. Appiah’s concerns are well seated.

This is because experts like economist Professor Godfred Bokpin of the University of Ghana say although many Ghanaians believe the IMF bailout would address current challenges, it will not lead to poverty reduction, job creation or salary increases.

If this is anything to go by, then the implication is that those who would care for the vulnerable when their support programmes are removed would bear heavier burdens than it is the case now.

As important as Mr. Appiah’s suggestion is, he seems to be making the public to be curious about social interventions and the $3billion IMF support the country is going to receive to restructure the economy in the hope of resolving challenges that undermine its growth.

And he increases public curiosity when he says that despite Ghana’s economic challenges, it would be suicidal for the government to implement any programme that would disadvantage the vulnerable groups in the society.

What does Mr. Appiah know with regard to the IMF programme and social interventions in the country which the rest of the Ghanaian public do not know?

The question is “Will the IMF programme result in a cut in social interventions?
It is said that the core objective of IMF programmes is to protect the vulnerable, so we believe if the country’s administrators are going to keep to that objective, then Mr. Appiah and others like him would have nothing to fear about the fate of the vulnerable.

Our only concern is that most of the time some public officials make public pronouncements which put affected people on edge, so it is better they illustrate their claims with real life situations rather than speculation.

For us, issues to be raised now should include whether students are being taught and fed well under the FSHS and the inadequacy of the payments under LEAP.
Just this week, it has been reported that the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection has started the nationwide disbursement of GH¢109,031,160 to about 350,000 households, translating into more than 1.5 million individual beneficiaries, for the 83rd and 84th cycles under the LEAP programme.

On the average, even if the GH¢109,031,160 is meant for only 1.5 million beneficiaries for only one cycle, say the 83rd cycle, each beneficiary will receive just GH¢72.69 stipend and imagine the amount going for two cycles.
We think running social interventions effectively, especially by fixing the problems that crop up should concern the public the more so they can always demand accountability from the government.