When a Committee Report Answers the Wrong Questions

A committee report may be formally presented, neatly written and apparently conclusive, yet fail in its most important duty: to establish the truth behind the events it was constituted to investigate.

This is my central concern with the committee report on the Obuasi school riot. Having reviewed the report, I consider it inadequate for its intended purpose. The critical question is whether the committee sufficiently investigated the circumstances that led to the riot or merely documented the immediate events surrounding it.

A report is not fit for purpose simply because it has been completed. It is fit for purpose only when it adequately answers the questions it was mandated to address.

The committee was tasked with ascertaining the causes of the riot. That mandate required it to establish not only what happened but, more importantly, why it happened.

A riot does not ordinarily emerge from a vacuum. While the immediate trigger may be identifiable, the underlying causes could include accumulated grievances, distrust of school authorities, dissatisfaction with the handling of complaints, or a perceived failure of institutional accountability.

If allegations of sexual harassment and concerns about the school's response formed part of the circumstances leading to the unrest, those issues could not responsibly be treated as peripheral. They required careful examination to the extent that they were relevant to the committee's mandate.

The distinction is fundamental: identifying the immediate trigger of a riot is not necessarily the same as establishing its underlying causes.

A committee that investigates only the visible disturbance without adequately examining the circumstances that produced it risks delivering an incomplete account of events.

One particularly troubling issue concerns the reported participation of complainants in the committee's proceedings.

According to the account presented in the public discussion, 16 girls were identified as complainants, but only four appeared before the committee. One reportedly withdrew or changed her position, leaving three who maintained allegations of sexual harassment.

These figures do not establish that the allegations were true, nor do they independently explain why the other girls did not appear. However, they raise questions that a credible investigation should seek to answer.

Why did so few complainants participate? Were they adequately informed of the process? Did they feel safe? Were there concerns about intimidation, stigma, retaliation or the impartiality of the proceedings?

The reported decision of Barbara, who allegedly went directly to the police rather than appear before the committee, makes the issue even more significant. Her reasons should be established through evidence rather than speculation. Nevertheless, the circumstances surrounding her decision deserve attention when assessing the effectiveness of the school's internal reporting mechanisms.

When those expected to provide answers cannot explain why critical voices are absent, the investigation remains incomplete.

An internal committee must guard against the temptation, whether conscious or otherwise, to protect institutional reputation at the expense of a thorough inquiry.

The test is not whether the committee interviewed some individuals or produced findings. The test is whether it examined relevant evidence, considered competing accounts, addressed material inconsistencies and explained how its conclusions followed from the evidence.

A report that fails to confront significant unanswered questions risks creating the appearance of accountability without delivering its substance.

This does not mean that every allegation must be accepted as fact. Fairness requires the opposite: allegations must be investigated impartially, the rights of all parties respected, and conclusions supported by evidence. But fairness also demands that potentially relevant evidence is not ignored.

Ultimately, the purpose of an inquiry is not to produce a document that closes a chapter. It is to establish facts, identify failures and recommend measures that prevent recurrence.

The most dangerous report is not necessarily one that contains falsehoods. It may be one that presents an incomplete account with enough authority to discourage further questions.

Ghana must therefore look beyond the existence of the Obuasi committee report and examine its substance. Did it adequately establish the causes of the riot? Did it confront the relevant evidence? Did it explain the grievances that may have contributed to the unrest?

Until these questions are satisfactorily answered, the report should not be mistaken for the final word on what happened.

Justice, accountability and child protection demand more than a report. They demand the courage to investigate uncomfortable truths, even when those truths expose institutional weaknesses.

The measure of a committee is not the report it submits, but the truth it manages to uncover.