The decision by President John Dramani Mahama to dissolve the Ministry of Information, among other ministries, as a cost-saving measure and a move towards a leaner government has been challenged by former Information Minister, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah. Nkrumah argues that the dissolution is merely symbolic, a reshuffling rather than a genuine reduction, as the newly created Ministry of State in Charge of Government Communications essentially replicates the functions and costs of the former ministry. He points to the similar salary structures for the new minister and deputy, the continued use of the same resources, including office space and vehicles, and the retention of the same civil servants, questioning how any significant cost savings can be achieved under these circumstances. Nkrumah’s contention is that the government’s justification for the dissolution lacks substance and that the supposed savings are illusory.
Nkrumah’s critique centers on the financial implications, or lack thereof, of the restructuring. He highlights the continuity of expenditure, arguing that the reassignment of responsibilities and personnel under a different title does not translate into actual cost reduction. He specifically points to the salaries of the Minister of State in Charge of Government Communications, Felix Kwakye Ofosu, and the Deputy Presidential Spokesperson, Shamima Muslim, asserting that they mirror the salaries of the former Information Minister and Deputy Minister respectively. This, he argues, demonstrates that the government’s claim of cost-cutting is misleading, as key personnel continue to draw similar remuneration. The continued utilization of the same office space and vehicles further reinforces Nkrumah’s argument, suggesting a mere rebranding exercise rather than a genuine attempt at reducing government expenditure.
The former minister’s challenge goes beyond just salaries and resources. He also questions the rationale behind maintaining the same staff complement within the newly created ministry. By retaining the same civil servants who previously worked within the Information Ministry, Nkrumah argues that the government has simply shifted the workforce, not reduced it. This, he contends, further undermines the claim of creating a leaner, more efficient government apparatus. The existing personnel, with their associated salaries and benefits, continue to represent the same financial commitment, negating the purported cost savings. The restructuring, therefore, appears more cosmetic than substantial, failing to achieve the stated objective of reducing government spending.
In contrast to Nkrumah’s critique, President Mahama defends the decision as a strategic move aimed at streamlining government communication while upholding the promise of downsizing. He explains that integrating the communication function into the presidency, under a Minister of State, allows for more effective information flow, which is crucial for the government’s success. This centralized approach, according to Mahama, enhances coordination and ensures consistent messaging across government departments. He emphasizes the importance of strategic communication and the role it plays in achieving the government’s objectives, implying that the restructuring is designed to optimize this critical aspect of governance.
The President further elaborates on the strategic advantages of the new structure, highlighting the support provided by a team of communication professionals deployed across key sectors. This decentralized support network, he argues, strengthens the overall communication framework and facilitates effective dissemination of information within specific areas of governance. By integrating the core communication function within the presidency and simultaneously deploying specialized communication personnel across various sectors, the government aims to achieve a more coordinated and targeted approach to information dissemination. This, Mahama suggests, allows for better management of the government’s narrative and enhances public engagement.
Ultimately, the differing perspectives on the dissolution of the Information Ministry highlight a debate on the nature of government restructuring and its impact on public finances. While the government presents the move as a strategic realignment aimed at efficiency and cost reduction, the former minister challenges this narrative, arguing that the changes are superficial and fail to achieve any meaningful savings. The debate raises questions about the transparency and effectiveness of government restructuring efforts and the need for clear metrics to assess their true impact. It remains to be seen whether the new structure will deliver on the promised benefits of improved communication and cost efficiency or simply perpetuate the existing expenditure under a different guise.
