Former Managing Editor of the Insight Newspaper, Kwesi Pratt Jnr., has questioned the effectiveness of the New Patriotic Party’s (NPP) recent ‘Ye Gye Ye Sika’ demonstration, arguing that many participants appeared not to understand the issues behind the protest.
Pratt, who was commenting on the demonstration organised by the party’s National Youth Wing, said interviews with some participants revealed that they had turned up for different reasons, with some unable to explain why they were protesting.
He recounted the case of an elderly woman who told interviewers that she had joined the demonstration to retrieve money from the NPP National Youth Organiser Fuseini Abanga.
According to Pratt, the woman alleged that Abanga had collected money from police officers and soldiers but was mismanaging it, prompting the demand for its return.
He said several other participants also struggled to explain the purpose of the protest when questioned.
“Some of the people who were also interviewed on why they went to do this simply said that they didn’t know why they were on the demonstration,” he said.
Pratt acknowledged the reported turnout of about 10,000 people but argued that only a tiny minority of those interviewed mentioned the evacuation of Ghanaians from South Africa, which was among the issues the NPP had raised against the government.
He said the apparent lack of understanding among many demonstrators undermined the significance of the protest.
Turning to the controversy surrounding the evacuation exercise, Pratt cautioned against treating discrepancies in the expenditure figures as proof of corruption, stealing or dereliction of duty.
He argued that where figures do not add up, the appropriate initial response should be verification and auditing to establish the facts.
He described such discrepancies as a “general deficiency”, insisting that they should not automatically attract criminal accusations or calls for the dismissal of public officials.
“If you have a situation where figures don’t add up, it is not a confirmation of corruption. It is not a confirmation of stealing. It is not even a confirmation of dereliction of duty,” he stated.
Pratt consequently questioned the decision by political actors to mobilise demonstrations and demand the removal of ministers before the alleged discrepancies had been properly investigated.
He also criticised those challenging the evacuation expenditure figures for, in his view, failing to conduct basic verification with the airlines involved.
He said investigators should have contacted the airlines directly to establish the amounts charged for the flights and the payments they received, rather than relying solely on information found on the internet.
“The airlines have offices, they have telephone numbers. You can contact the airlines by email and so on. What sloppy job is that? If the figures that we are giving are different from figures online and so on, how do you verify it?” he asked.
He added that anyone seeking public support for allegations of financial wrongdoing must first undertake thorough research and present credible evidence.
Pratt described the failure to make such basic inquiries as incompetence, arguing that it weakened the credibility of the claims being advanced.
Beyond the evacuation controversy, he also called for greater respect for the structures and responsibilities of government institutions.
Drawing on his experience in the civil service, he explained that ministries have departments and agencies, each with its own administrative and public relations structures.
He argued that agencies should be allowed to respond to questions concerning their operations instead of expecting ministers to personally address every issue arising within institutions under their supervision.
Using the Passport Office as an example, Pratt questioned why matters relating to its day-to-day operations should automatically become the responsibility of the Foreign Affairs Minister when the office itself should be capable of providing answers.
He also cited the National Theatre, arguing that the institution should be the first point of contact on matters concerning its operations rather than the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Creative Arts.
According to him, allowing government institutions to function within their respective mandates would help ensure accountability while preventing ministers from being unnecessarily drawn into operational matters.
He warned that if ministers were expected to answer every question concerning agencies under their supervision, the same logic could eventually require the President to respond to every issue involving the entire government machinery.
“If we have a situation where all ministers refer questions to the President to answer, because all ministers are on behalf of the President, then by extension, all ministers can conveniently refer all questions to the President,” he said.
Pratt maintained that effective governance requires institutions to take responsibility for their respective operations and communicate directly on matters within their mandates.
By Gifty Boateng