Re MPs’ ‘Bribery’: I’ve The Evidence

Details

Category: Briefs & Memos

Created on Monday, 17 March 2014 00:00

Hits: 14472

Ghana- Re MPs’ ‘Bribery’: I’ve The Evidence

…As Honourable Alban Kingsford Sumanu Bagbin prepares to storm Privilege Committee of the Ghanaian Parliament to forcefully distinguish Lobbying from Bribery and Corruption over an allegation that the Honourable lawmakers take bribes but not undisclosed gifts as part of their duties?

BRIEFS & MEMO

“The British parliamentary expenses scandal began in May of 2009, when the Daily Telegraph newspaper began publishing previously-secret information about MPs’ allowances and expense claims. Much of the public outcry focused on the fact that taxpayers had been unwittingly paying for what seemed like extravagant expenses that had little to do with MPs’ official duties; this type of claim was perhaps epitomized by the floating duck house purchased by Sir Peter Viggers (Conservative MP for Gosport) for his pond and reimbursed at taxpayers' expense. In other cases, attention was focused on expense claims that were not so much extravagant as fraudulent: for example, several MPs managed to use a second-home allowance to pay for improvements on two houses by repeatedly switching the designation of their primary and secondary homes. At a time of economic recession and austerity budgets, these abuses struck a nerve with voters, who indicated in surveys that they would severely punish implicated MPs in the upcoming general election.” [1] In this article Asante Fordjour seeks to assess whether the purported give-and-take dealings of our MPs as reavealed by Hon. Alban Bagbin, constitute bribery and corruption or a legitimate lobbying outcomes, as we are being made to believe.

INTRODUCTION

According to Legal-Dictionary, lobbying involves the advocacy of an interest that is affected, actually or potentially, by the decisions of government leaders. Individuals and interest groups alike can lobby governments, and governments can even lobby each other. “The practice of lobbying is considered so essential to the proper functioning of the U.S. government that it is specifically protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peaceably … to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The practice of lobbying it is said, “provides a forum for the resolution of conflicts among often diverse and competing points of view; information, analysis, and opinion to legislators and government leaders to allow for informed and balanced decision making; and creates a system of checks and balances that allows for competition among interest groups, keeping any one group from attaining a permanent position of power. Lobbyists can help the legislative process work more effectively by providing lawmakers with reliable data and accurate assessments of a bill's effect.”[2] When then, can a lobby be construed as bribery or corruption?

COMMENTRAY

Professor David Lanham- Professor of Law at the University of Melbourne has argued that it is difficult to find satisfactory definition of bribery at common law because the offence underwent a development over centuries and is often described in terms of a number of offences rather than a single offence [3]. According to Russell on Crime [4], bribery is the receiving or offering of any undue regard by or to any person whatsoever in order to influence his or her behaviour in (an official situation) and incline him or her to act contrary to known rules of honesty and integrity. Thus bribery is concerned with public rather than private functions. In the letter of Article 288* of the Constitution of the Fourth Republic of Ghana, a public officer is a person who holds a public office. This includes among others, public corporations other than those set up as commercial ventures; Art 190(1)(b), those established by the constitution, Art 190(1)(c); and such other public services the Ghanaian Parliament may by law prescribe, Art 190(1)(d).

Article 284* provides that the public officer shall not put himself in a position where his personal interest conflicts or is likely to conflict with the performance of the function of his office. So what does this mean if Daily Graphic Online [5] quotes Hon Alban Bagbin as saying: “The reality is that MPs are Ghanaians and there is evidence that some MPs take bribes and come to the floor and try to articulate the views of their sponsors?” “This is because in Ghana we have not developed what we call lobbying. There are rules; there are ethics regarding lobbying and we in Ghana think that lobbying is taking money, giving it to MPs and writing pieces for them to go articulate on the floor. That is bribery,” he adds. But this is not the first time such alleged hidden under-dealing is made public. In 12009 Hon PC Appiah-Ofori, a vociferous New Patriotic Party (NPP) Member of Parliament (MP) for Asikuma-Odoben-Brakwa, revealed that the sale of the Ghana Telecom to Vodafone Holdings BV was characterized by palms-greasing amount of $5000.00, to both sides of the political divide in the House.

It has come as no surprise that many well-meaning Ghanaians are calling not only for an independent committee to investigate the truth of the allegations being sporadically thrown in the air by leading honourables of government but also to make a conscious bid to establish whether it is honourable on the part of our MPs, elected not only to legislate for the State but also to scrutinize Parliamentary Bills and government policies, could be arguably, bought with gifts and inducements to act in the contrary. What makes this blemish worrying is the rather unfortunate, but never-ending helplessness shown by successive governments in prescribing correct medication despite a well-publicised bribery and corruption practices occasioning throughout our immediate past. And of course the complexities that such undisclosed or unrecorded transaction on the part of both the givers and the recipients is the norm.

Accordingly, we are pointed to the UK and the US where lobbying had well been legally defined. The term lobbyist has been traced to the mid-seventeenth century, when citizens would gather in a large lobby near the English House of Commons to express their views to members of Parliament. “By the early nineteenth century, the term lobby-agent had come to the United States, where it was applied to citizens seeking legislative favors in the New York Capitol lobby, in Albany. By 1832 it had been shortened to lobbyist and was widely used at the U.S. Capitol. In the early 2000s lobbyists practice their trade not only in the halls of the U.S. Capitol and the corridors of state legislatures, but also on playgrounds, in boardrooms, in manufacturing plants, at cocktail parties, and in retirement homes.”[2]

Contemporary lobbying methods include political action committees, high-tech communication techniques, coalitions among groups and industries sharing the same political goals, and campaigns to mobilize constituents at the grassroots level. “Lobbyists include schoolchildren who want to prevent their favorite neighborhood park from becoming a shopping mall, corporations who contribute to a particular legislator's campaign, lawyers who speak with legislators on behalf of their clients' business interests, cities who lobby the state legislature for changes in transportation laws, presidential aides who suggest new amendment language to congressional committee members, retired persons who want to save their government benefits, and many others. Each type of lobbyist attempts to win support for a particular point of view.” The exciting consolation down here in the UK is that w can monitor the voting patterns of our local MPS on crucial debated issues and more often than not, they consult not only with their constituents over their informed choices and where applicable, reconcile their conflicting interest.

To achieve the best for their constituencies, they don’t sit in dark to receive undisclosed brown envelopes. In the US, the contemporary practices are that the identities of lobbyists are not put under bushel. Samuel Ward, a well-respected lobbyist, it is told, was so successful at influencing legislators that in the mid-1800s Congress decided to investigate him. It is said that despite the noncorrupt success of lobbyists such as Ward, lobbyists during the mid-nineteenth century were often regarded as ethically questionable individuals. “This reputation was enhanced whenever lobbyists abused their position with improper practices such as bribing members of Congress.” It began efforts to reform lobbying in 1907, when it banned campaign contributions from banks and corporations. In 1911 proposed restrictions on domestic lobbying were first revisited, but these were not approved until 1946, when a law passed [6]

But in 1954 lobbyists challenged the Regulation of Lobbying Act for being unconstitutionally vague and unclear. In United States v. Harriss [7], the Supreme Court upheld the act's constitutionality but narrowed its scope and application. The Court ruled that the act applies only to paid lobbyists who directly communicate with members of Congress on pending or proposed federal legislation. This means that lobbyists who visit with congressional staff members rather than members of Congress themselves are not considered lobbyists. In addition, the act covers only attempts to influence the passage or defeat of legislation in Congress and excludes other congressional activities. Further, the act applies to and restricts only individuals who spend at least half of their time lobbying. In our instant case, we are unclear about those who are said to be allegedly, paying various sums of monies to our parliamentarians.

According to the 1946 US act, lobbyists to whom the law applies are required to disclose their name and address; the names and addresses of clients for whom they work; how much they are paid and by whom; the names of all contributors to the lobbying effort and the amount of their contributions; accounts that tally all money received and expended, specifying to whom it was paid and for what purposes; the names of all publications in which the lobbyists have caused articles or editorials to be published; and the particular legislation they have been hired to support or oppose. In addition, the act requires lobbyists to file registration forms with the clerk of the House of Representatives and the secretary of the Senate prior to engaging in lobbying. These forms must be updated in the first ten days of each calendar quarter for as long as the lobbying activity continues. Violation of the act is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 or a jail sentence of up to 12 months, and a three-year prohibition on lobbying.

On the face of this, it could be summarily concluded that the legislation sought to achieve nothing more than transparency and accountability which obviously, is in sharp contrast to what Honourables PC Appiah-Ofori and Sumanu Bagbin, appear to be telling the Ghanaian. Reward is something most us in Ghana could hardly perceive as bribe. Russell defines bribe in terms of regard- anything which is regarded or intended to be regarded as of value to the person bribed. According to Lenham [3], while money or tangible objects are the most obvious form of bribe, there is no reason why bribe should not take the form of intangibles like services nor where the bribe takes the form of a promise. So if our parliamentarians take a joyride or any for reward in anticipation influencing their legislative skills and honesty to favour an organization or an individual that could yes, amount to bribery or corruption.

The corresponding argument here is that assuming we go to court for justice and find that the judge sitting on the case has some sort of relation with our opponent or has vested interest in the matter the good conscience requires that s/he ought to rescue himself/herself from the adjudication of the case. It seems to me that if you are looking for an advocate, the best might not be your opponent’s sibling or even a friend. Affinity could comprise justice so in law, it is wise to know who is sitting on your case.

It has been found that since the 1940s, there has been continuing debate in the United States over the proper role of lobbyists in a democratic society. Whereas lobbyists forcefully contend that they offer a valuable service to legislators and government officials, providing information and raising questions about pending legislation or executive action, their numerous critics counter-claim that many lobbyists are nothing more than influence peddlers who seek political and legislative favors for their clients. [2]

“The perception that lobbyists and the interest groups they represent have corrupted the political process has led to state and federal legislation that regulates lobbyists. Nevertheless, a fundamental conflict remains over the extent to which government may regulate lobbyists and lobbying activities. Those opposed to restrictions on lobbying argue that the First Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to petition the government for redress of grievances. Placing restrictions on lobbyists impairs this right. On the other side, critics of lobbyists assert that regulations are needed to preserve the democratic process and to ensure the legitimacy of government. Many people have become cynical about politicians and government, perceiving that only lobbyists have access to the halls of power.” [2] In the UK, lobbying is the practice of individuals and organisations trying to influence the opinions of MPs and Lords. According to Methods of lobbying vary and can range from sending letters, making presentations, providing briefing material to Members and organised rallies. The starting point could be your MP [8].

The UK Transparency of lobbying, non-party campaigning and trade union administration Bill introduced in the House of Commons on 17 July 2013, makes provision in three areas: it establishes a register of professional lobbyists and a Registrar of lobbyists to supervise and enforce the registration requirements; it changes the legal requirements for people or organisations who campaign in relation to elections but are not standing as candidates or a registered political party and changes the legal requirements in relation to trade unions’ obligations to keep their list of members up to date. [9] In 1991, the US General Accounting Office found that nearly 10,000 of the 13,500 individuals and organizations listed in a popular lobbyist directory were not registered under the 1946 act which has had its critics. So in 1995 Congress passed a law where individuals who receive at least $5,000 in a six-month period from a single client are required to register with the clerk of the House and the secretary of the Senate, listing the congressional chambers and federal agencies they contacted, the issues they lobbied for, and how much money was spent on the effort. The reporting requirements also apply to organizations whose own employees lobby on their behalf and spend at least $20,000 in a six-month period on that effort [10].

Notwithstanding the reforms legislated in 1995, critics made additional bid, pointing out the irony of banning small gifts yet permitting senators and representatives to accept $5,000 donations for their campaign committees from political action committees controlled by lobbyists. The consequence is that now; it is the legislator who calls the lobbyist, for a political contribution. But lobbyists complain that the reforms have stifled the decades of relationships and among other legitimate requests, out of fear that it will produce political embarrassment which can impair the democratic process and a chilling effect on the exercise of citizens’ rights. But advocates of strict regulation contend that this is needed to prevent special interests from controlling the political process, to ensure ethical behavior on the part of MPs and government officials, and to enhance the public’s confidence in the government. In the US Act, the regulation, for example, does restrict traditional practices such as giving legislators and staffs tickets to sporting events, paying for meals and entertainment, and underwriting golf and skiing junkets.

It is argued that these practices have contributed to the public perception that gifts and favors buy access to legislators and sometimes even votes. In Williams v R [11], a charge of attempted bribery was brought under the Australian Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914, s. 73. Blackburn J (at 373) took the view that the requirement of corruption at common law implied an intention to procure a breach of duty on the part of the official bribed but no such limitation applied to the statutory offence. However, in HM Advocate v Dick [12], and R v Bomle[13], a councillor who obtained ?600 as a bribe for undertaking to procure the granting of licensing certificate by a Magistrate was held not to be guilty of bribery because it did not relate to the exercise of the Councillor’s official functions but was merely an inducement to the defendant to use his influence as a Councillor to procure the granting of the certificate.

CONCLUSION

Having considered the issues of lobbying, bribery and corruption, the question then, is: what if an MP sitting on a committee; receives monetary gifts or otherwise from an individual or an organization in a matter or an intended regulation in which the offeror has vested interest? Russell states bribery included the phrase in order to influence his behaviour and to incline him to act contrary to the known rules of honesty and integrity. In S v Deal Enterprise (Pty) Ltd. [14], Nicholas J, described mens rea in terms of corrupt purpose as an intention to seduce the recipient of the bribe into taking a price for action in official capacity. Hon. Bagbin has yes, the burden of proofing the same in his MPs’ bribery allegations.

Compiled By Asante Fordjour for The OmanbaPa Research Group

JusticeGhana

........

References

See JusticeGhana/Blog

No comments

MORE HARDSHIP AHEAD OF GHANAIANS -IMF refutes Mahama’s promise of ‘Better Days Ahead’

Details

Category: NewsBrief

Created on Monday, 03 March 2014 00:00

Hits: 3144

MORE HARDSHIP AHEAD OF GHANAIANS -IMF refutes Mahama’s promise of ‘Better Days Ahead’

Contrary to the assurances of ‘better days ahead’ of the nation, given by President John Dramani in his State of the Nation Address, the International Monetary Fund has sent out a strong warning that the country is still not out of the woods yet with respect to the current economic hardship foisted on the people.

No comments

SPEECH BY NANA AKUFO-ADDO, AT SYMPOSIUM ORGANISED BY THE ROYAL AFRICAN SOCIETY AND THE CENTRE OF AFRICAN STUDIES, SOAS, AT THE BRUNEI SUIT, SOAS

Details

Category: Special Reports

Created on Tuesday, 04 March 2014 00:00

Hits: 3822

The Echoes of Nana Akufo-Addo

ON 3RD MARCH 2014, ON:

'GHANA, 57 YEARS AFTER 1957: RECALIBRATING THE COURSE OF PROGRESS'

Our illustrious chairperson, Lord Paul Boateng of Akyem & Wembley, respected Ghanaian Foreign Minister, Hannah Tetteh, Ghana’s High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, Prof Danso-Boafo, Research Associate of the Centre for African Studies, SOAS, Dr Michael Amoah, fellow panelist and Vice President of Teneo Holdings, Manji Cheto, fellow Ghanaians, ladies and gentlemen.

I thank the organisers, the Royal African Society and the Centre for African Studies of SOAS, for this occasion, which has put our country of Ghana into focus on the eve of the 57th anniversary of her independence. It is a welcome spot light. Our late President, Prof J E A Mills, was an illustrious alumnus of this prestigious university, SOAS. To complete the protocol, let me use this occasion also to congratulate publicly (albeit belatedly) our chairperson for his membership of the famous British House of Lords. It is a fitting tribute to a distinguished career in British politics. As a fellow Akyem, I am happy to note that he is flying the flag in that august body. More grease to your elbow, your Lordship.

It is entirely appropriate, at a time when our lives are dominated by engineers and nanotechnologists, that the discussion of Ghana’s future progress should be framed in the language of engineers and the modern learning. Hopefully, it is not an accident for I, a lawyer and a product of the old learning, to be invited to participate in this discourse. Be that as it may, my layman’s understanding is that to calibrate is to set or measure and recalibrate is to reset. After 57 years of independence, should we reset the course of Ghana’s progress? I believe we should.

The large crowd of chiefs and people, including Paa Grant, Danquah, Obestebi- Lamptey, R S Blay, Cobinna Kesse, Ofori-Atta, Ako-Adjei, Akufo-Addo, et al, who gathered on that fateful Saturday of 4th August 1947, 67 years ago, in the historic city of Saltpond, to launch Ghana’s first nationalist organisation, the United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC of blessed memory), were heavily influenced by the imminent approach of India’s independence, which was barely a week away. They would employ the same Gandhian, peaceful, nonviolent means to achieve freedom and national independence for the Gold Coast, which they agreed to rename Ghana. Their vision was clear: they would build a new modern, united African nation, free of foreign and domestic oppression, which would be grounded on the principles of democratic accountability and the rule of law. Despite the subsequent division of the nationalist movement into its conservative and radical wings with the arrival in the country of Nkrumah four months later, this proved to be the enduring vision of Ghana’s march towards freedom.

In fulfillment of this vision, Ghana achieved independence peacefully as a thriving democracy and, under Kwame Nkrumah’s dynamic leadership, became, on the 6th March 1957, the hope for Africa. The rich possibilities of Ghana for her people and the wider African people were, however, tragically subverted by the descent into authoritarian rule during the First Republic and the ensuing decades of instability, characterised by a series of military coups. Ghana managed to achieve the unenviable feat of four republics within a period of 35 years. (It took France 150 years to achieve five republics). Not only did this period experience widespread violations of the human rights of the Ghanaian people, it also marked a significant decline in the living standards of the people.

PROSPECTS FOR THE 4TH REPUBLIC

Fortunately for the progress of the country, on April 28, 1992, in the historic referendum of that date, the Ghanaian people, by an overwhelming margin, endorsed democratic governance, as established by the Constitution of the Fourth Republic. We have witnessed under the 4th Republic the longest period of stable, constitutional rule in our history. Instructively, these last 21 years have also brought about significant progress in Ghana’s economic growth and human development. However, we cannot take public confidence in our democracy for granted. Leadership carries the burden of strengthening public confidence in the capacity of our young democracy to deliver where it matters most: improving the lives of the people.

What, then, are the prospects for the future? I believe those prospects are directly tied to our ability to overcome three basic challenges frustrating the course of our progress.

The first is the institutional challenge. A paramount concern of our time has to be the consolidation of Ghanaian democracy, requiring the strengthening of our institutions of state, particularly, in their capacity to deliver results and to be accountable to the people. The most direct way of so doing is for all Ghanaians to accept to play by the rules we have set for ourselves in our national constitution and in our laws. Playing by the rules also means enforcing those very rules. By this, we can deal with corruption and abuse and theft of public funds. It is critical to the process of recalibrating the course of Ghana’s progress. We must have a public sector that is efficient in delivering universal access to good quality education, healthcare, legal remedies, personal security and basic infrastructure.

The second challenge is the transformation of the Ghanaian economy. Today’s digital revolution and the fierce pace of technology mean that knowledge, skills, technology, creativity and capital have become very mobile, making them more important in determining where production takes place rather than the location of natural resources. How ready are we, though, to meet the challenge to our ability to promote national prosperity and protect national security, knowing all too well that the biggest threat to our social and political stability is the phenomenon of widespread youth unemployment. As one travels across the villages, towns and cities of Ghana, one cannot help but notice the large numbers of able-bodied young persons who are idle. This is a consequence of a failed educational system that does not provide them with the requisite skills and a structurally rigid economy that simply cannot generate the large pool of good jobs with good pay. It will be suicidal on the part of policy makers if they do not act with urgency to address this crucial matter.

The third challenge is a cultural and intellectual one. It is about our society and its value system. It is about our individual and collective commitment to Ghana’s wellbeing. How strong do we live by our values? And what are these values, really? We must garner the courage to elevate the operative principles and standards of our society. After all our daily prayers and finger pointing, why do we allow the paying of bribes to be a tolerable social behavior? So far we have devalued our values to allow people to get away with it. It is time to be deliberate in setting a higher bar for ourselves and, especially, for our leaders.

We can succeed if we build a stronger sense of national pride, a greater sense of unity, a stricter sense of responsibility, and a richer sense of genuine ownership among Ghanaians. In our homes, in our communities, in our workplaces, we must encourage the development of a set of patriotic values that push us to do more; reward creativity and success, and, above all, make the creation of an equitable society of opportunities and aspirations for every Ghanaian, irrespective of the circumstances of birth, the bedrock of our nation building. We must build and be seen to be building a Ghana for all Ghanaians.

I say this because we need to maintain hope and confidence of our people in the capacity of our democracy to deliver. Leaders from all fronts of our society should do more to let Ghanaians know that public leadership is a vehicle for the pursuit of the common good and not for self-enrichment. And, I want to see that paradigm shift in my lifetime.

THE YOUTH BULGE

According to Ghana’s 2010 national census, 16.5 million Ghanaians, some 66.65% of the population, were below the age of 30. Africa, generally, has the youngest population in the world. If we plan well, the youth bulge will become a demographic dividend. However, as one writer warns us, “if a large cohort of young people cannot find employment and earn satisfactory income, the youth bulge will become a demographic bomb, because a large mass of frustrated youth is likely to become a potential source of social and political instability.” (Justin Yifu Lin, former World Bank Chief Economist and Senior Vice President, Development Economics).

That is why I remain absolutely convinced that we should dedicate revenues from our new oil wealth to investing in our youth. Education and skills training are the most important source of empowering and providing opportunities to the youth. Currently, at every stage of Ghana’s education, our children are falling out of the system. Over 60% of those who make it to primary school do not make it to secondary school. We are conscripting, year after year, a future army of unemployable adults. This is dangerous Ghana deserves a leadership that thinks of the next generation, not the next election. This is the reason behind the priority proposal to redefine basic education and make it free and compulsory from Kindergarten to Senior High School. No child must be denied access to quality education. For this generation, in the context of mass poverty, the responsibility for ensuring that lies on the state.

So how do we do it? Ghana’s problem is essentially the African problem, a producer of primary products and an importer of finished goods. The structure of our economies has not changed much. We have merely shifted from importing finished products from the West to importing them more and more from the East.

The share of primary products in total exports from Africa increased from about 72% in 2000 to about 78% in 2011, with crude oil accounting for 51% and 57%, respectively, and the share of manufactured goods declining from 21% to 16% over the same period. Statistics from other economies tell it better: in 2010, manufacturing contributed to 32.9% of exports from Brazil, 82.7% in Germany, 85.3% in South Korea, and 93.2% in China.

Ghana’s dependency on raw materials has grown even more than the continental average. In 1928, at the departure of Gordon Guggisberg, the colonial governor responsible for building the nation’s infrastructure to serve the Gold Coast economy, 70% of our foreign exchange earnings were from gold, cocoa and timber. In 2012, cocoa, gold and oil accounted for 82.2% of total exports.

Currently, the cedi, Ghana’s currency, has been competing with David Moyes, the Manchester United coach, in being the butt of many jokes. In response, the Central Bank recently announced a series of controversial exchange control measures to save the cedi. But, beyond having an economy managed by a competent team, the structural weakness of that economy must be fixed to keep the currency predictably stable.

A FUTURE OF FRACKING AND VALUE-ADDITION

The philosophy for the future of our economy can be summed up in two words: value addition. Whether it is in agriculture, tourism, the arts, banking or manufacturing, the goal is to add value to what we do. The good news is that Ghana, since oil production began in December 2010, has consistently registered some of the highest economic growth rates in the world. The bad news: it has not been accompanied by a rapid increase of jobs. The signals are bad enough to wake us up, change course, and travel the road of structural transformation. 10 years ago, it was envisioned that Africa would account for 25% of all US crude oil imports by 2015, registering a ten-percentage point increase in the process. Today, there are uncertainties over Africa’s future status as a pillar of global energy security. This is because the centre of gravity of oil production over the next two decades will see significant shifts because of shale gas and tight oil. Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is allowing the US and Canada to tap unconventional oil and gas deposits which they could not reach just a few years ago, thereby reducing substantially their dependence on petroleum imports. The British government also recently announced support for fracking in Britain and in offshore waters, to ease a reliance on foreign oil and gas. The energy revolution that fracking brings only adds greater urgency to the need for Africa, which produces nearly 20% of global oil, to prioritise the process of diversifying its economies. Simply put, the Guggisberg economic model cannot crank us into the future. We must diversify to remain economically relevant in the 21st century.

It is important to note that the digital revolution has not fundamentally dislodged manufacturing as the main engine of growth and catch up. The empirical association between the degree of industrialisation and per capita income in developing countries has been re-stated by a recent extensive, corroborative study done by Harvard and MIT scholars, Ricardo Hausmann and Cesar A. Hidalgo ('The Atlas of Economic Complexity: Mapping Paths to Prosperity'], which covered the economies of nearly every nation in the world over the past 60 years. Their study shows that the path to prosperity is still in building the knowledge and capabilities necessary to manufacture goods and make things.

I believe with a clear policy framework, laced with incentives, the same entrepreneurial spirit that gets our people to travel to China, Germany, Turkey, USA and the UK to buy manufactured goods to sell can be recalibrated for them to import capital inputs that will make us finish the goods back home. What is required is a leadership committed to this transformation agenda; a leadership that can take society along that must-travel highway.

Just like 57 years ago when Ghana took the lead in the struggle for freedom from colonial rule, today, Ghana has what it takes to be at the forefront of the industrialisation agenda. By 2030, West Africa is projected to grow to some half a billion people. This requires economic policies that can weave together our numerous resources with our talents and energy to turn our nation into an economic powerhouse, generating employment for our people. The strengthening and transformation of ECOWAS into a genuine regional market has to be a major goal of Ghanaian public policy in this decade.

VALUE FOR MONEY

To succeed in industrialising Ghana we must show a far greater seriousness in building the nation’s infrastructure, including housing, transport, power, water, irrigation, and ICT. I believe we could have done much more recently even with the limited resources available. A major impediment to this is the worrying deficit in value-for-money when it comes to public procurements. The World Bank and Government of Ghana estimate a funding gap of some US$2 billion per annum to meet Ghana’s infrastructural needs. Yet, we managed to register a record budget deficit of nearly US$4bn in 2012, which occurred without meeting our spending targets for infrastructural development in that election year. Two years on, our new Finance Minister is still struggling to plug that fiscal hole instead of spending his vital energies to help transform our economy. Efficient management of government resources and projects is needed to develop greater confidence in the economy. As the experiences of the successful countries in Asia and elsewhere have shown, government has a very important and positive role to play in spurring industrialisation and economic transformation. It needs not be state-owned; it needs rather the vision, commitment and intelligent support of the state.

There is a lot that is right about Ghana and about us, as Ghanaians. We are enjoying the longest period of stability since 1957. We are a democratic nation with a God-fearing people proud of their freedoms. Our country is rich in human and mineral resources. We can draw on a significant number of educated, hardworking and enterprising people, both at home and abroad. Ours is a nation with a positive international image on a continent that is finally but slowly being taken seriously. We are hailed as a model of democracy and stability in our region. We have a young, dynamic population ready to define their own destiny. What they want are the opportunities to grow and make it happen.

We must re-imagine what Ghana can be like in the 21st century and re-dedicate ourselves to building that new Ghana. We can build a United Ghana even in a fiercely competitive democratic environment. A Ghana where there is tolerance and mutual respect for divergent views, where religious freedom is stoutly championed. A Ghana where politicians do not exploit our ethnic differences for electoral gains. A Ghana where rules are obeyed by both leaders and the led.

Our country has everything it needs to progress. Ghana is ready and so must its leaders be. I am confident that the future for Ghana is brighter than the dream of 1957 and I know that this century is the era of our manifestation.

• God bless Ghana ! God bless Africa ! God bless us all ! Thank you.

Source: Nana Addo-Dankwa Akufo-Addo

No comments

Nana Addo to land on 6th March?

Details

Category: NewsBrief

Created on Monday, 03 March 2014 00:00

Hits: 3096

Nana Addo to land on 6th March?

After a six-month sojourn in the United King­dom to cool off - following a heated legal tussle over who really won the 2012 presidential election - the 2012 presidential candidate for the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo- Addo, is on his way back to Ghana.

No comments