Dr John Osae-Kwapong, a Fellow at CDD-Ghana, has argued that public accountability over the conduct of the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) should not end with individual officers but must extend to the political authorities who supervise the institution.
Speaking on JoyNews’ PM Express, he said attempts to separate the administrative actions of state institutions from politics remain difficult because the heads of such agencies are political appointees.
He said the challenge becomes even more pronounced whenever investigations involve high-profile political figures or former government officials.
“Abraham Amaliba of the NDC legal team raises a good point on how to separate administrative behaviour of state institutions from politics. The only challenge there is that the heads of these institutions are politically appointed,” he said.
According to him, changes in government are often followed by changes in the leadership of key state institutions. That, he argued, creates a political context that makes it difficult for the public to view controversial actions as merely administrative decisions.
“When there is a turnover election, you do see some turnover in who is appointed heads of these institutions, and then it is when the cases involve these high-profile or these politically-exposed persons, either a very prominent party official or they may have served in government.”
Dr. Osae-Kwapong said these factors introduce “another dynamic” that makes it difficult to interpret such actions as purely administrative.
While agreeing that repeated complaints against state institutions should prompt reforms in their administrative practices, he said the political dimension cannot be ignored, as it shapes public perception.
“It also has that political dimension to it that lends itself easily for bystanders to read political meaning into the actions of these administrative officials in our state institutions,” he said.
He described this as a continuing tension that Ghana must resolve, asking, “How do we prevent making the appointing authority politically vulnerable to the actions of a state actor that yes he may have appointed, but may not even have sanctioned those behaviours?”
The discussion centred on whether accountability for alleged constitutional violations by EOCO should rest solely with the agency’s officers or with the political leadership that oversees it.
Responding, Dr Osae-Kwapong said responsibility exists at several levels.
“I think there are multiple layers of accountability in all of this,” he said.
He argued that an appointing authority who repeatedly receives and verifies complaints about the conduct of the head of a state institution has a duty to reconsider that appointment.
“If I have made someone the head, the administrative head of a state institution, but I’m seeing a repeated behaviour of things that offends the constitution, then as the appointing authority, one of the lines of accountability is to say maybe I need to rethink that decision.”
He added that officials who directly supervise such institutions also have a responsibility to intervene.
“Whoever that institution reports to directly also has a certain level of accountability in pulling the person back to say some of these actions are not proper, or they do offend the constitution.”
Dr Osae-Kwapong maintained that the visibility of politically exposed individuals in such cases, coupled with the pattern of leadership changes after elections, continues to blur the line between administrative conduct and political responsibility.
Also read:
