Allegations of Bribery in Ghana’s Parliament: A Legal and Ethical Analysis.

Bribe

Introduction:
Recent allegations of bribery involving members of Ghana’s Parliamentary Appointments Committee have sparked widespread public outrage and raised serious questions about the integrity of the legislative process. The controversy centers on the admission by Hon. Joseph Osei Owusu, the former 1st Deputy Speaker of Parliament, that members of the Appointments Committee of the 8th Parliament received monies from the Office of the former Chief of Staff to facilitate their work. This revelation has ignited a debate about corruption, accountability, and the rule of law in Ghana’s governance system. This article seeks to juxtapose the admission of the former 1^st Deputy Speaker with the provisions of Section 244 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), and analyze whether or not these allegations take on even greater significance, and whether they suggest a potential violation of Ghana’s legal framework governing public office conduct.

The Allegations and Admission.
On Wednesday January 29, 2025 activist Oliver Barker-Vormawor appeared before the appointments committee of the 9^th Parliament after he was summoned over a facebook post he made alleging bribery of the members of the appointments committee of Parliament. The claims, which have stirred significant public interest, were made ahead of the vetting session for Defence Minister-designate Dr Omane Boamah, held on Tuesday, January 28.[1]

As the debate raged on in the media, Joseph Osei Owusu, a prominent figure in Ghana’s Parliament, confirmed that members of the Appointments Committee received funds from the Office of the former Chief of Staff, Frema Osei-Opare, to support their work.[2] While he clarified that the funds were not intended to influence the committee’s decisions, the admission has raised eyebrows, particularly because such payments were not publicly disclosed or accounted for. Critics argue that the acceptance of these funds, regardless of their intended purpose, creates a perception of impropriety and undermines public trust in the integrity of parliamentary processes.

The Appointments Committee plays a critical role in vetting and approving presidential nominees for ministerial and other high-ranking positions. Any suggestion that its members may have been influenced by external financial incentives calls into question the fairness and transparency of these appointments.

Section 244 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29)

Section 244 of the Criminal Offences Act provides a clear legal framework for addressing corruption and bribery involving public officers. The section states:

“If after (emphasis mine)a person has done any act as a public officer, juror, or voter, he secretly accepts, or agrees or offers secretly to accept for himself or for any other person, any valuable consideration on account of such act, the person so agreeing or offering shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, to have been guilty, having before the doing of such act, corrupted such public officer, juror, or voter, in respect of such act.”

This provision establishes a presumption of guilt if a public officer secretly accepts or agrees to accept any valuable consideration (such as money) in connection with their official duties even after the person has done any act as a public officer. The burden of proof shifts to the accused (in this case, the public officer) to demonstrate that the acceptance of such consideration was not intended to influence their actions. It is one of the few exceptions in law where burden to prove is not on the one alleging.

Juxtaposing the Allegations with Section 244

1. Secret Acceptance of Valuable Consideration:

The admission that members of the Appointments Committee received funds from the Office of the Chief of Staff raises questions about whether this constituted a “secret acceptance” of valuable consideration. If the payments were not publicly disclosed or properly accounted for, it is the humble opinion of the author that they could fall within the scope of Section 244 of Act 29.[3]

2. Presumption of Guilt:
Under Section 244[4], the mere acceptance of such funds even after the performance of the act by the parliamentarians creates a presumption of guilt. The burden would then fall on the recipients to prove that the funds were not intended to influence their decisions or actions as public officers.

3. Public Trust and Accountability:
Even if the funds were purportedly meant to facilitate the committee’s work, the lack of transparency in their receipt and use undermines public trust. Public officers are expected to act with integrity and avoid any conduct that could create a perception of impropriety.

4. Legal and Ethical Implications:
The allegations highlight a broader issue of ethical governance. Public officers, particularly those in high-ranking positions, are held to a higher standard of conduct. Accepting funds from external sources, especially without proper disclosure, violates both legal and ethical norms.

Broader Implications for Ghana’s Governance.

The allegations against the Appointments Committee members are not just a legal issue but also a matter of national importance. They underscore the need for stronger mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability in Ghana’s governance structures. Key steps to address this issue include:

Strengthening Anti-Corruption Measures:

Ghana’s anti-corruption institutions, such as the Office of the Special Prosecutor and the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), must be empowered to investigate such allegations thoroughly and independently.

Enhancing Parliamentary Oversight:

Parliament should adopt stricter rules regarding the acceptance of funds or gifts by its members, particularly those serving on critical committees.

Promoting Transparency:

All financial transactions involving public officers should be subject to public scrutiny to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure accountability.

Public Awareness and Advocacy:

Civil society organizations and the media play a crucial role in holding public officials accountable. Increased public awareness and advocacy can help deter corrupt practices and promote ethical governance.

Conclusion
The allegations of bribery involving members of Ghana’s Parliamentary Appointments Committee are a stark reminder of the challenges facing the country’s governance system. When examined through the lens of Section 244 of the Criminal Offences Act, these allegations suggest a potential violation of Ghana’s legal framework and a breach of public trust. Addressing this issue requires not only legal action but also a broader commitment to transparency, accountability, and ethical governance. As Ghana strives to strengthen its democratic institutions, it is imperative that public officers uphold the highest standards of integrity and serve as role models for the nation.

(The Author is a Part 1 student of the Ghana School of Law. He welcomes your views and feedback via [email protected])

References:
[1] https://citinewsroom.com/2025/01/appointments-committee-summons-barker-vormawor-over-bribery-allegations/

[2] https://www.myjoyonline.com/chief-of-staff-gave-us-money-after-vetting-but-its-not-bribery-joseph-osei-owusu/#google_vignette

[3] Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29)

[4] ibid