Unfounded Accusations of Suspicious Flights Against Ntim Fordjour: A Critique by Kwasi Kwarteng

The controversy surrounding two flights that landed in Accra last March has ignited a debate about the burden of proof in allegations of illicit activity. Private legal practitioner Kwasi Kwarteng has defended Assin South MP, Reverend John Ntim Fordjour, against demands for evidence to substantiate his claims that the flights carried cocaine and laundered cash. Kwarteng argues that the MP’s role is to raise suspicion based on credible information, not to conduct a full investigation or present conclusive proof. He emphasizes that the onus of investigation falls squarely on the state, which has the resources and authority to thoroughly examine such claims. Demanding concrete evidence from the MP at this preliminary stage, Kwarteng contends, misunderstands the process and places an undue burden on the individual raising the concern. He maintains that even if the state deems the provided information insufficient, the gravity of the allegations, coupled with the principles of good governance and transparency, necessitates a thorough investigation.

Kwarteng’s defense of the MP highlights the critical distinction between raising a concern based on reasonable suspicion and providing irrefutable proof. In a democratic society, citizens have a right, and arguably a responsibility, to bring potential wrongdoing to the attention of the authorities. This act of raising a red flag, however, does not obligate the individual to possess the means or expertise to conduct a full-fledged investigation. Instead, it triggers a responsibility on the part of the state to investigate the matter thoroughly and transparently. The state, with its investigative agencies and resources, is uniquely positioned to gather evidence, interview witnesses, and analyze data to determine the veracity of the claims. This process ensures that allegations are properly scrutinized and that appropriate action is taken if wrongdoing is discovered.

The initial claims made by Reverend Ntim Fordjour during a press conference held by the Minority Caucus in Parliament called for transparency regarding the cargo contents of Air Med Flight N823AM and Cavok Air Antonov 12B. The MP expressed concerns that these flights may have transported illicit substances and large sums of cash, emphasizing the need for full disclosure and accountability from the relevant authorities, particularly the National Security Ministry. These allegations, while serious, represent an initial suspicion that warrants further investigation, not a definitive statement of fact. They serve as a trigger for the state to initiate a comprehensive inquiry, not a requirement for the MP to present irrefutable proof.

The government’s response, delivered by Minister of Government Communications Felix Kwakye Ofosu, dismissed the MP’s claims. Ofosu asserted that both flights, one a cargo plane and the other a medical aircraft, had legitimate reasons for landing in Ghana and had undergone thorough security checks that revealed no illegal items. This response, while seemingly conclusive, does not negate the need for a transparent investigation, particularly given the seriousness of the allegations. Public trust in government institutions requires not just denial, but demonstrable proof and transparency in the investigative process. Simply stating that the flights were cleared by security agencies without providing further details or allowing for independent verification can leave room for doubt and speculation.

The core issue at stake is not simply the veracity of the MP’s claims, but the broader principles of transparency and accountability in governance. The demand for conclusive evidence from the MP before initiating an investigation sets a potentially dangerous precedent. It could discourage citizens from reporting suspicious activity for fear of being burdened with the responsibility of proving their claims. Such a chilling effect could undermine efforts to combat illicit activities and erode public trust in government institutions. A healthy democracy thrives on the active participation of its citizens in holding those in power accountable. This includes raising concerns, even if they are based on suspicion, and trusting that the state will investigate those concerns diligently and transparently.

The controversy surrounding these flights underscores the importance of establishing clear protocols for handling allegations of wrongdoing. These protocols should clearly delineate the roles and responsibilities of the individuals raising concerns and the state agencies tasked with investigating them. They should also emphasize the importance of transparency and accountability throughout the investigative process. By adopting such protocols, governments can foster a climate of trust and encourage citizen participation in upholding the rule of law, ensuring that all allegations, regardless of the source, are thoroughly investigated and that the truth, whatever it may be, is ultimately revealed. This commitment to transparency and accountability is crucial not only for addressing specific allegations but also for strengthening the foundations of a just and democratic society.