Ayariga’s free tertiary proposal an ‘unthoughtful economic load’ on Akufo-Addo govt – Dr Nyarko

Member of Parliament for Kwadaso in the Ashanti region, Hon. Kingsley Nyarko says there were fundamental issues with the motion put forward by the Member of Parliament for Bawku Hon. Mahama Ayariga.

According to him, contrary to claims by the Minority that the Majority did not support the motion and that they do not care about the plight of the people of Ghana who have been hit by the pandemic, Mahama Ayariga did not defend his motion.

To him, if Mahama Ayariga had not been speculative with the examples cited, the Majority would have supported his motion.

“Furthermore, if he had given us convincing examples, and not the speculative appeal, we would have supported the motion. In fact, the motion was poorly laid.”

Apart from Ayariga’s speculative examples cited, Hon. Kingsley Nyarko indicated that Mahama Ayariga failed to state the effect it will have on the country’s budget.

“As at the end of the 2019/20 academic year, we had 500,072 students in our tertiary education institutions. If each student is paying GHS3000 averagely, we are talking about GHS 1.5 billion. Some even pay GHS 5000 and more. He didn’t give us this information and the implication on our budget. It’s this same Hon Ayariga and the NDC that have been accusing the government of excessive borrowing and borrowing beyond the acceptable threshold. Why would they want government to add to our debt, especially when there had not been any appropriation regarding the request? I don’t get it!”

READ HIS STATEMENT HERE

Hon Kingsley Nyarko, MP, Kwadaso writes

Ayariga’s Private Member’s Motion Was Rejected On Sound Reasoning

The majority side of the house, in principle, was not against the motion requesting the President to absorb the school fees of students in our public tertiary education institutions and the extension of support to private tertiary education institutions.

However, there were fundamental issues with the motion. It appears the maker of the motion—Hon Ayariga wasn’t clear about what he wanted the house to do. He amended the motion 3 times moving from requesting the President to take urgent steps to suspend the payment of admission fees of tertiary education students in public institutions only, to finally the absorption of the fees of public tertiary education students and the extension of support to private tertiary education institutions.

Now folks, the maker of the motion failed to prove empirically the problem he was pushing. He had not shown with evidence and examples the existence of the problem necessitating the need for the intervention.

Yesterday, I spoke with friends at the UG finance office and was told that 100 % of the students had paid their school fees; no student had put in a request about their inability to pay the fees. Because of C19, they asked students to pay 50% instead of the 70% they paid last academic year.

Again, at the University of Health and Allied Sciences (UHAS), only 10 students, not percent had not paid their fees, and for such students, a payment plan has been put in place for them to pay. UHAS has even increased enrollment from 800 students last academic year to about 1,200 students this current academic year. These evidence and others clearly show that Hon Ayariga was leading us to the realms of absurdity and also creating a non-existent problem.

Furthermore, if he had given us convincing examples, and not the speculative appeal, we would have supported the motion. In fact, the motion was poorly laid.

As at the end of the 2019/20 academic year, we had 500,072 students in our tertiary education institutions. If each student is paying GHS3000 averagely, we are talking about GHS 1.5 billion. Some even pay GHS 5000 and more. He didn’t give us this information and the implication on our budget. It’s this same Hon Ayariga and the NDC that have been accusing the government of excessive borrowing and borrowing beyond the acceptable threshold. Why would they want government to add to our debt, especially when there had not been any appropriation regarding the request? I don’t get it!

This figure even excludes the support to the private tertiary education institutions he was talking about. Why support to private tertiary education institutions, and not absorption of the fees? This is discriminatory and we shouldn’t forget that the same Ndc has been accusing the government of excluding private school learners/students from the FSHS policy. In fact, this is not only discriminatory, but double standard!!!