Inusah Fuseini, the former Member of Parliament for Tamale Central, has staunchly defended the legality of the Operation Recover All Loots (ORAL) initiative, characterizing it as a vital information and evidence-gathering platform. He argues that the initiative is perfectly legal, serving as a conduit for citizens to report suspected instances of illicit wealth accumulation by public officials. Fuseini grounds his defense in the Whistleblower Act of 2006 (Act 720), which explicitly encourages individuals to report such improprieties. He highlights the Act’s provision allowing disclosures to be made to the President, who can then delegate a committee, such as ORAL, to process the information on their behalf. This process, Fuseini asserts, is neither unlawful nor improper, merely a structured mechanism for handling sensitive information related to potential corruption.
The establishment of ORAL, however, has sparked considerable controversy and drawn criticism from various legal and governance experts. Kwaku Ansah-Asare, former Director of the Ghana School of Law, has vehemently opposed the initiative, labeling it a “witch-hunting concept” with the potential to destabilize the nation’s peace and security. He argues that such a taskforce could easily be misused to target political opponents and settle personal scores, thereby undermining the rule of law and eroding public trust in government institutions. Ansah-Asare advocates for the dissolution of ORAL, emphasizing the importance of upholding due process and relying on established legal channels for investigating corruption allegations.
Similarly, Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin has questioned the necessity of ORAL, asserting that it duplicates the functions of existing anti-corruption agencies. He contends that the existence of institutions like the Economic and Organized Crime Office (EOCO) and the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) renders ORAL redundant and potentially disruptive. Afenyo-Markin warns that the initiative could be weaponized for political vendettas, undermining the impartiality and credibility of the fight against corruption. He advocates for strengthening existing institutions and providing them with the necessary resources to effectively discharge their mandates, rather than creating parallel structures that could blur lines of responsibility and accountability.
Kwasi Yirenkyi, a governance expert, adds another layer of critique, arguing that ORAL’s methodology of simply collecting information and forwarding it to existing state bodies is inefficient and a waste of valuable resources. He emphasizes the need to empower these established institutions to directly receive and investigate corruption reports, streamlining the process and ensuring a more timely and effective response. Yirenkyi believes that ORAL, in its current form, adds an unnecessary bureaucratic layer that could impede investigations and potentially compromise the integrity of evidence.
The core of the debate surrounding ORAL revolves around its role and legitimacy within the existing anti-corruption framework. Proponents, like Fuseini, view it as a crucial facilitator, enabling citizens to report suspected wrongdoing without fear of reprisal while providing a direct channel to the highest office in the land. They argue that ORAL acts as a crucial conduit, ensuring that important information reaches the relevant authorities, thereby bolstering the fight against corruption.
Critics, on the other hand, express profound concerns about the potential for abuse, duplication of effort, and the undermining of established institutions. They argue that ORAL, by its very nature, creates a parallel structure that could circumvent due process, promote political witch-hunts, and ultimately weaken the effectiveness of existing anti-corruption mechanisms. The debate highlights the complex challenges involved in balancing the need for robust anti-corruption measures with the imperative to safeguard fundamental rights and uphold the principles of good governance. The future of ORAL, and its impact on Ghana’s fight against corruption, remains a subject of intense scrutiny and debate.
