The Government, as I understand, has set up a Commission of Inquiry to look into alleged financial misappropriation involving senior officials of the previous administration in respect of the `Ghana@50 Celebrations’. The Team consist of three members chaired by Mr Justice Isaac Douse, an Appeals Court Judge. The other members are Mr O.T. Prempeh, former Auditor-General, and Madam Marietta Brew Appiah-Oppong, a legal Practitioner. They were all appointed by the Ruling Party, with a mandate to provide forensic examination of all financial transactions and activities related to the event. The objective is to establish whether or not State funds were lawfully used. The question that quickly spring to mind is- whose interest is this Inquiry going to serve? Is it the National Interest or the Political interest of the Government?

If there is a strong case for the National Interest then the Inquiry should go ahead with my blessings. However, I submit that there is a weak case for the National Interest and that the real interest, which will be served with this Inquiry, is that of the Ruling Party. The case for National interest is that it will establish the facts surrounding the financial implication of the `Ghana@50 Celebrations’ and its ramifications. It will also clear the air about ` who did what’ `How the out flows of state funds were directed into the Celebrations’ and above all the legality of the use of state funds. There are those in this camp of argument, who believe that if some officials of the previous administration are deemed guilty by the Inquiry findings; for any financial misdeed and are publicly shamed or `hanged to dry’, it will be an important lesson and a great deterrence for future generation of elected officials not to dip their hands in the National Kitty.

In my opinion, the test question should be whether the Nation can afford to go through a protracted soul-searching; heart-rending inquisition that is blatantly one sided, without imploding. It is one sided because there was no cross-party selection of the members of the panel of Inquiry. The Team members were handpicked by the Government. The selection process was shrouded in secrecy, so the public has no way of gauging the criteria for selection or the degree of independence that these Public servants will bring to the table of Inquiry. It is the Government that set the agenda for the Inquiry with no input from the opposition. Conveniently, the Government avoid mentioning the Cost-Benefit analysis of the `Ghana@50 Celebrations’. Hence the commission will not be obliged to comment on the feel-good factor across the nation and beyond generated by the Ghana@50 Celebrations. The international Centre stage occupied by Ghana as the Country’s 50th Celebration drew attention across the globe; the consequent inflow of invisible earnings and other foreign investment pouring into the country will all be overlooked by the Commission.

The Inquiry is flawed from start because whatever its findings (objectively reached or not), it will be perceived by a large section of the Political community as being biased. The Inquiry will draw the opposition’s fire from the day to day activities of the government as they enter the dock for questioning during the period of the Inquiry. It will therefore stifle debate on a wide range of issues important to the nation; so the necessary checks on the excesses of the Government by the opposition will not be present. There is also cost implication and duplication of work by the Inquiry Team as they veer into the BNI territory. Already, there is talk of witch hunt of political opponents of the ruling Party, viewed through the lens of the opposition, as they receive regular unwelcome calls from the Bureau of National Investigation (BNI) agents. These constant knocks at the door of ex-Ministers by the BNI has been a dark cloud hanging over our fragile democracy, and it is slowly gnawing away the fabric our democratic institutions. It is bad enough to have the BNI, now seen as government poodle, creating a siege mentality for the opposition without adding some more `quangoes’ to demoralise them further. It is not a level playing field and very unhealthy for democracy! This perceived harassment of political opponents by the ruling Party using state apparatus is feeding the political and tribal divide of the Nation. The net effect will be a nation at the precipice of civil war, exploding from the centre. The government fixation with prosecution of its political opponents means its eye is not on the steering wheel of government. The incessant allegations against officials of the previous administration, deliberately peddled in public, beg the question whether it is not an official policy of the ruling Party to sling as much mud as possible at the opposition and hope some will stick. If that is the case, then it is a cancer that will, certainly, hastened the demise of our democracy. The dividend from such strategy, in terms of electoral success, is close to zero if the electorate is not fooled by it. However, the ruling Party may stand to gain if they pull the wool over the eye of the public. The opportunity cost of this small gain by the Ruling Party will be equivalent to the nation’s self-destruct button depressed 70%. Can the government afford such risk by placing its interest above the national interest? The argument in favour of punishing public servants and elected officials for financial malpractice to signal some sort of warning to other generation of state officials does not hold water, as long as public institutions are not reformed to meet the challenges they are set to do. For example, if investigative bodies like the National Audit, The BNI, etc continue to sing the tune of the ruling Party due to some vested interest, the Ruling Party will always succumb to that temptation to dip into the National Coffers. The independence of Supervisory bodies is crucial in the elimination of corruption in high places! The other piece in the puzzle is to give the Supervisory bodies the necessary teeth to hold the elected officials to account whilst the latter are IN office. If the Supervisory bodies are bound to go soft on the Party in power, the malpractice will persist. It is not good crying over spilt milk! Ghana’s financial black hole will not be filled by cash retrieval from ex-Ministers and their `surrogates’ even if the monies are retrievable; besides, the outcome of these investigations are not certain, so why throw good money after bad one?

The government should start looking ahead and concentrate on protecting what is left in the National coffers by investing in the economic infrastructure such as Education and Health. They should save cost on hopeless investigations and give true independence to the Investigative bodies. In a nutshell, if the government is serious about Law and Order, it should equip the Police and other similar state agencies to meet the challenges of the 21st century and not interfere with their recruitment and retention policies. A clear separation of the investigative bodies from the democratic institutions, which the former oversee, will signal true independence. Couple with the teeth to look into the workings of these institutions whilst they are manned by the Ruling Party (and NOT when the Party is out of office), the investigative bodies will begin to really close the net on corruption in high places without the constant recurrence. It makes economic sense and heals the nation’s wound caused by disunity arising from perceived witch hunt against political opponents, if the buck stops with the Ruling Party. In other words, if a line is to be drawn on corruption in the corridors of power, then the Ruling Party must empower `Watchdogs’ like the BNI with proper teeth and nose to monitor and sniff out wrong doing DURING the Ruling Party’s tenure of office and not after the horse has bolted from its stable. The only inference that can be drawn from pushing for these Inquiries and high profile demonization of the opposition is to deflect from the inadequacies of the Government.

Kwaku Frimpong