Absurd Novelty

The judgement debt settlement for contract deal is a government arrangement and not an Ekwow Spio-Garbrah initiative.

Sounding as weird as it is bizarre, it can only emanate from a desperate government bereft of ideas on how to turn bad things around.

It is an arrangement we are at pains at detaching from government. Indeed, there is no way Trade Minister Ekwow Spio-Garbrah can move such an initiative independent of Cabinet: it is a machination hatched by government at the highest level. The trade minister is only a sacrificial lamb representing government on the firing line.

We stand to be disputed that it is not a collective decision of government to make such a proposal for want of a better means of dealing with the judgement debt debacle festooned around its neck. We think therefore that it is not an issue which should be personalised around Spio-Garbrah so government can take cover from a deserved bashing. The trade minister's occasional reference to the fact that he took the decision independent of the president is nothing but an unnecessary bravado. He is even reported to have said that he does not need the authority of the president to initiate such an arrangement – powers which he lacks anyway.

If he has decided to face the wrath of his compatriots on behalf of his boss, the president, so be it; but for him to create the impression that he alone should be held responsible for it cannot be the truth.

No minister can air such an arrangement without the backing or even the authority of the president or cabinet as the case may be. The emanating embarrassment should therefore be the government's.

Governance is not run this way and all who understand its workings will definitely find such a proposal outrageous. Can ministries, besides the finance ministry, raise loans or even make arrangement on the terms of payment for such financial transactions? Can any ministry, in the face of the dearth of funds, raise loans to pay salaries?

It is not for nothing that procedures underpin the workings of governments worldwide. Any variation to these is an aberration bespeaking of lack of knowledge of governance or a mark of desperation.

We wish the trade minister did not ask which section of the law he had breached by putting forth such a proposal.

Communicating to Destination Inspection Companies (DICs) on a subject as sensitive as the settlement of judgement debt for contracts is a novelty which bespeaks of desperation on the part of government. What can the representatives of these international companies with well constituted boards tell their shareholders or higher authorities about such a weird proposal?

The efforts of the minister to give the subject a face-lift on the public domain is enough evidence that it is out of tune with normalcy.

Procurement procedures, as established by law, spell out how contracts should be awarded: such variation cannot be considered the norm in any civilised governance system. Mooting such a proposal should impugn the integrity of any government.