Ebenezer Nartey, a former Member of Parliament for Ablekuma Central representing the New Patriotic Party (NPP), has launched a scathing critique of President John Dramani Mahama’s performance during his first 120 days in office, particularly taking issue with the President’s claim of ministerial appointments as a key achievement. Nartey argues that simply nominating individuals for ministerial positions is a fundamental presidential duty, not a noteworthy accomplishment. He further disputes the President’s assertion that a lean government has been formed, citing the alleged appointment of NDC regional organizers as presidential staffers with salaries comparable to deputy ministers. This, Nartey contends, obfuscates the true size and cost of the administration, undermining the President’s claim of efficiency. He ultimately awarded the President a dismal performance rating of 1.2 percent, echoing a pervasive sentiment of dissatisfaction with the administration’s progress thus far.
Nartey’s central argument revolves around the President’s presentation of ministerial appointments as an achievement. He posits that this is a routine function of any president, a necessary step in forming a government, and therefore cannot be considered a marker of success. Instead, Nartey suggests that genuine achievements would involve tangible improvements in governance, policy implementation, or the lives of citizens. Merely filling ministerial positions, especially when the promised number has not yet been reached, does not qualify as a substantive accomplishment. He further pointed out that President Mahama’s initial promise of 60 ministers has yet to be fulfilled, with only 56 nominations announced. This discrepancy, in Nartey’s view, further weakens the President’s claim.
Adding to his criticism, Nartey questions the veracity of President Mahama’s claim of a “lean government.” He alleges that the President has appointed NDC regional organizers to presidential staff positions, effectively creating a shadow cabinet with similar financial implications as appointing more ministers. These appointments, according to Nartey, are essentially a political maneuver disguising the true cost of the administration. By assigning these roles to party loyalists with salaries comparable to deputy ministers, the President is effectively increasing the government’s expenditure while maintaining the facade of a smaller cabinet. This, Nartey argues, is misleading and contradicts the President’s claim of fiscal responsibility.
Nartey’s assessment of the President’s overall performance paints a bleak picture. He dismisses the President’s highlighted achievements during his 120-day address as either exaggerations or superficial measures. He implies a lack of substantial progress on critical issues facing the nation and suggests that the President’s focus has been misplaced. This overall assessment highlights a fundamental disconnect between the President’s self-proclaimed achievements and the perceived reality on the ground.
Nartey’s overarching critique reflects a broader concern regarding the President’s leadership and the direction of his administration. The contention over ministerial appointments and the size of the government is not merely a semantic debate. It represents a deeper concern about the President’s priorities and his commitment to genuine reform and efficient governance. Nartey’s assertions, if substantiated, suggest a pattern of political maneuvering and obfuscation that could undermine public trust and confidence in the government.
The implications of Nartey’s critique extend beyond mere political posturing. If the allegations of inflated appointments and misleading claims are accurate, they could have serious consequences for the country’s governance and economic stability. An oversized government, regardless of how it is presented, inevitably leads to increased expenditure and potential inefficiencies. This, in turn, could impact the allocation of resources for essential services and development initiatives, further exacerbating existing challenges and hindering progress. Nartey’s harsh assessment serves as a call for greater transparency and accountability from the government and underscores the need for a critical evaluation of the President’s performance, beyond the rhetoric of self-proclaimed achievements.
