Solomon Owusu, a prominent member of the Movement for Change, has sharply criticized President-elect John Mahama’s decision to appoint Goozie Augustus Tannoh as Presidential Advisor for the 24-Hour Economy and Accelerated Export Development. This appointment, part of Mahama’s strategy to implement his ambitious round-the-clock economic plan, has been deemed unnecessary and a potential drain on public resources by Owusu. He argues that creating such advisory roles, especially so early in the new administration’s tenure, indicates a susceptibility to lobbying pressures and could lead to a bloated and inefficient government structure, echoing concerns about the previous administration under President Akufo-Addo. Owusu’s central question revolves around the very nature of the 24-Hour Economy initiative: is it an institution requiring a dedicated advisor with a state-funded salary, or is it a policy concept that can be effectively managed within existing ministerial frameworks? This, he believes, highlights a potential for redundancy and misallocation of resources.
Owusu’s critique stems from a broader concern about the potential for Mahama’s administration to repeat what he perceives as the mistakes of the previous government, specifically regarding excessive appointments and the creation of potentially superfluous roles. The appointment of a dedicated advisor for the 24-Hour Economy, in his view, exemplifies this trend. He contends that such specialized advisory positions, particularly for policy initiatives that are not clearly defined as standalone entities, could lead to overlapping responsibilities and a lack of clear accountability within the government structure. This, he fears, could ultimately hinder the effectiveness of policy implementation and create unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles.
The core of Owusu’s argument lies in his questioning of the justification for creating a specific advisory role for the 24-Hour Economy. He posits that this policy initiative, while ambitious and potentially beneficial, does not necessitate a dedicated advisor, especially given the existing ministerial structure. He suggests that the responsibilities associated with implementing the 24-Hour Economy could be easily integrated into the portfolios of existing ministries, such as the Ministry of Trade and Industry or the Ministry of Finance. This, he argues, would not only streamline the government structure but also ensure more efficient use of public resources. By questioning the fundamental need for this advisory role, Owusu aims to highlight what he perceives as a potential trend towards unnecessary expansion of the government bureaucracy.
Furthermore, Owusu expresses concern about the timing of this appointment, coming so soon after the election. He interprets this as a sign of the new administration’s vulnerability to lobbying pressures, suggesting that the creation of such specialized roles might be driven more by political expediency than by genuine need. He argues that a more prudent approach would be to first assess the existing government structure and identify areas where adjustments are truly necessary, rather than creating new positions based on external pressures. This careful approach, he believes, would ensure a more streamlined and efficient government, capable of effectively implementing its policy agenda.
Owusu emphasizes the importance of holding the new administration accountable and preventing a repeat of what he considers past mistakes. He urges citizens to be vigilant and question decisions that appear to contribute to unnecessary bureaucratic expansion. He frames his criticism of the 24-Hour Economy advisor appointment not as a personal attack but as a constructive critique aimed at ensuring the success of the Mahama administration. By highlighting potential pitfalls early on, he hopes to contribute to a more efficient and effective government.
In essence, Solomon Owusu’s critique of the appointment of a Presidential Advisor for the 24-Hour Economy centers on his concern about potential government bloat, redundancy, and the misuse of public funds. He questions the necessity of this specific role, arguing that the policy objectives could be achieved within existing ministerial frameworks. He also raises concerns about the timing of the appointment, suggesting that it may be a result of undue lobbying influence. Ultimately, he calls for greater scrutiny of government appointments and a focus on creating a leaner, more efficient administration. He frames this critique as a constructive contribution aimed at ensuring the success of the incoming government and preventing a recurrence of what he perceives as past errors. His comments underscore the importance of public discourse and accountability in ensuring responsible governance.
