The dismissal of staff at agencies under the Ministry of Communications has sparked controversy, with accusations of political bias and improper procedures. Former CEO of the National Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme (NEIP), Kofi Ofosu Nkansah, alleges that while many employees were terminated for supposedly irregular recruitment, individuals perceived to be sympathetic to the National Democratic Congress (NDC) were retained, despite being hired under the same allegedly flawed processes. This allegation raises concerns about the fairness and objectivity of the ongoing staff rationalization exercise. Mr. Nkansah challenges the narrative of irregular recruitment, asserting that the hiring process, specifically at the Ghana Investment Fund for Electronic Communications (GIFEC), followed established protocols.
Mr. Nkansah details the recruitment process at GIFEC, emphasizing its adherence to standard procedures. He highlights the public advertisement of positions in national newspapers in March 2024, followed by interviews conducted by the Public Services Commission (PSC), with representation from both the GIFEC board and the Ministry of Communications. Successful candidates, he explains, were initially hired on probation for six months, ultimately receiving permanent appointments in December 2024. This detailed account aims to refute claims of irregular recruitment and underscores the involvement of established oversight bodies in the hiring process. The timeline presented also suggests that the recruitment occurred well before the December 7 election, potentially contradicting claims that the hirings were politically motivated post-election appointments.
The controversy revolves around the justification provided by the Minister of Communications, Sam George, for the ongoing staff rationalization. Mr. George expressed concern over the hiring of approximately 600 staff members after December 7, 2024, the date of the general elections. He characterized this influx of new employees as a “mess” inherited from the previous administration, necessitating a “cleanup” to enhance the ministry’s efficiency. This rationale implies that the hirings were potentially politically motivated, aimed at securing positions for supporters of the outgoing administration before the transfer of power.
Mr. George’s actions to streamline the ministry’s workforce include authorizing the termination of nearly 100 employees at Ghana Post, with further rationalization planned for other agencies under the ministry. He maintains that his objective is to create a leaner, more efficient ministry capable of effectively carrying out its mandate. This emphasis on efficiency and proper functioning serves as the primary justification for the staff reductions, suggesting a focus on optimizing the ministry’s performance rather than pursuing a politically driven agenda. However, the timing of the hirings, close to the election, and the allegations of selective dismissals, fuel suspicions of political motivations.
The conflicting narratives presented by Mr. Nkansah and Mr. George highlight the complexities of the situation. Mr. Nkansah’s detailed account of the recruitment process at GIFEC, including the involvement of the PSC, suggests a degree of procedural regularity. Conversely, Mr. George’s focus on the timing of the hirings, occurring after the December 7 election, raises questions about their legitimacy and potential political motivations. The discrepancy between the perceived regularity of the hiring process and the subsequent dismissals creates a tension that underscores the need for a thorough and transparent investigation to determine the facts of the matter.
The allegations of politically motivated dismissals, coupled with the differing accounts of the recruitment process, create a challenging situation that demands further investigation. Determining whether the dismissals were based on legitimate performance concerns, genuine irregularities in hiring procedures, or politically motivated actions is crucial. A transparent and impartial assessment is essential not only to ensure fairness for the affected employees but also to maintain public trust in the government’s commitment to fair and objective employment practices. The contrasting narratives underscore the need for an inquiry to establish the facts and address the concerns raised by both sides.
