By Nelson Ayivor
Bright Simons, Vice President of IMANI Africa, has used the high-profile conflict between the Office of Special Prosecutor (OSP) and a top investigative journalist over the estimated $2.7 billion in potential “savings,” from the SML contract abrogation as a case study to dissect the nature of “truth,” in Ghana’s democracy.
Simons argued that the fixation on whether the true figure is $2.7 billion or the journalist’s alternative of $500 million is a symptom of “over-political behavior,” that distracts from the crucial question of accountability methodology.
The policy analyst contends that well-meaning professionals – from law enforcement and journalists to policy analysts and court authorities – approach “truth, accuracy, certainty, and confidence,” from fundamentally different perspectives, each with its own inherent trade-offs.
He warned that Ghana’s tendency to obsess over the final number, the WHAT, rather than the thought of HOW they arrived there, ultimately prevents national learning and undermines real accountability.
“The crux of the debate between the OSP and the journalist lies in projecting the total amount of fees SML would have earned had the contract, which the OSP argued was illegal, been allowed to run its full course”
Simons’ analysis is based on the fee structure disclosed in the contracts: SML was entitled to 0.75% of all Ghana’s mineral export revenue (e.g., gold) and $0.75 for each barrel of petroleum exported.
He highlights that calculating the total fees SML would have earned over the contract’s lifetime – which included provisions for renewals – involves so many volatile variables and parameters that both the $500 million and the $2.7 billion figures could be reasonably supported.
“It should be obvious by now that many variables and parameters are involved here. What would have been the average gold and oil prices over the life of the contract had it continued? How much oil and gold would Ghana have produced?”
According to Simons, these necessary projections do not only involve determining the average gold and oil prices or estimating Ghana’s future production capacity, but factoring in potential new mines and oil fields, and settling on the contract’s true time horizon.
“Good-Enough” Truth
Simons stressed that each professional craft operates with necessary trade-offs that dictate how “truth” is presented to the public.
Policy analysts, for instance, are critical because they must crisscross multiple disciplines to produce “quick, good-enough information,” that responds to fast-changing societal issues, inevitably trading precision for speed and breadth.
Journalists sometimes over-simplify complex issues to communicate effectively with a broad readership, while prosecutors, in their zeal to build a solid case, can become overzealous in their estimations. The policy analyst noted that these differences are natural consequences of distinct professional mandates.
Even judicial authorities are not immune from these inherent limitations, Simons observed, as he challenged the common assumption that courts are halls of absolute truth.
“In court, what would the Judge think? Faced with testimony from competing academic experts (one for the prosecution and another for the defence)? Courts merely weigh evidence; they do not discern truth.”
Ultimately, the court’s “truth” depends entirely on the quality of the parameters and estimates chosen by the experts presenting the case. Simons noted that given the scenario, one can reasonably stretch the parameters to cover both the $500 million and the $2.7 billion figures to support either side.
“The point here is NOT that truth is relative or malleable. Rather, it is that truth (like certainty, confidence, and accuracy) is not some kind divine value bestowed on mortals by the Deities. It is tied to a particular practice of accountability. A particular craft. In a democratic society, well-meaning professionals will approach truth differently.”
The IMANI Vice President argued that in societies like Ghana, there is an overpowering tendency to “obsess over the what,” – the final, headline-grabbing figure – and to quickly align behind the viewpoint that best fits one’s political narrative. He defined this obsession with the outcome over the process as over-political behavior, a key component of his “Katanomics” framework.
For him, societies that invest a bit more time in analyzing the “how” – the underlying thought process, methodology, and choices of estimates for parameters – become more policy-aware.
Such policy-aware societies, Simons concluded, are generally better equipped to hold all actors wielding power, from law enforcement and courts to journalists and activists, more effectively accountable, rather than simply scoring political points.