What only two weeks ago was hailed as a masterpiece in investigative journalism
has suddenly turned into a scandal similar to the one surrounding the Port
officials accused of taking bribes.
Amidst the purported surprise in certain official circles at the report’s
findings, questions are now being raised about the nature and extent of
government’s involvement in what may turn out to be a costly and useless
journalistic stunt. Even the mischievous Kwaku Ananse would think twice before
pulling such a caper.
Did government pay/finance/fund/sponsor the New Crusading Guide and its intrepid
reporter, Anas Aremeyaw Anas, to undertake the Tema Port investigation and,
before that in 2010, the story of cocoa smuggling along the western border?
The answer to this simple question has surprisingly been a contradictory yes and
no from government, and a muddled denial from the paper.
But pry we must, starting with excerpts of interviews granted by Mr. Anas to
journalist Paul Adom Otchere (PAO) on February 1, 2011 and to Joy FM on February
11, 2011.
PAO: There must be people interested in your work enough to pay for it, and
these people have an interest. How do you synchronize the interests of whoever
pays for the work – because this is very heavy expenditure and it has to be paid
for (and everybody congratulates you for doing it) ... against the persons being
investigated so that you can draw a balance and then bring to the people the
real story rather than a story motivated by a competitor or something like that?
Anas: One of my proudest moment in life was when I was asked to do the cocoa
story... because the state apparatus were heavily at work at our borders, and
yet somebody saw within the state that, no, let’s have another eye to go and
look at what is happening....I went in there though sponsored by the State and I
faced down the State....
PAO: So it wasn’t private sponsorship.
Anas: No, it was not private sponsorship. This is public. When you watch “In
the Interest of the State”, the first thing I state was how I came into contact
with Ghana Cocobod.
PAO: Is it the same with the one we are about to see, the Customs one?
Anas: Sure, ... but of course it’s not Ghana [Cocobod]....but it is taken care
of by the State.
PAO: By the State.
Anas: Yes.
PAO: By the Republic.
Anas: Yes, by the Republic.
PAO: I think that is an important point that people want to know...it’s not
sponsored by business interests.
Anas: ... I have not had any business sponsorship here....
Interview with Joy FM: Interviewer provides background to controversy, followed
by a response from Anas:
Anas: Over the years, we have collaborated with state institutions...and this
doesn’t mean funding....The cocoa investigation, it was triggered by Ghana
Cocobod
Interviewer: As in Ghana Cocobod called you and said, “Anas this is a problem,
we want you to go and investigate for us.”
Anas: Exactly...we sat down. Now, let anybody come and show me a written
contract that is saying that I have charged this and that and that. It is
untrue. It doesn’t exit.
Interviewer: So what, they don’t pay for it?
Anas: The point is we sit down...Cocobod looks at what it can contribute, I
look at what I can contribute.... Can anybody pay me for my life ... This is
life we are talking about, you understand?
Interviewer: I understand, but I just want some clarity here. What they can
contribute includes cash and funding, isn’t it.
Anas: Hold on, that’s not what I’m talking about... For example, in the Cocobod
investigation, I needed a truck full of cocoa. I don’t have cocoa....
Interviewer: So they’ll give you the cocoa....
Anas: Yes, if they are able to provide those logistics, we move forward. Again,
it’s not just cocoa... The security agencies played a key role....
Interviewer: I’m sure you’ve heard the comment of government...that these two
jobs were funded by state agencies.
Anas: You’ve heard Okudzeto Ablakwa revising the statement gradually, because
they are now getting the facts of the matter, and the facts are what I’m putting
out.
End of interview. But not end of story.
There are issues of ethics, semantics and of course public policy that must be
resolved yet.
If government supported either investigation in any way, the ethics of the
journalism profession require full and unambiguous disclosure to avoid any
appearance of misrepresentation and self-dealing, even fraud. This was never
done and any obscure references to how the reporter came in contact with Cocobod
hardly meets the minimum standards for full disclosure.
Which leads us to the issue of semantics, especially as it appears in the
interview with Joy FM.
The absence of a “written contract” does not by itself mean that money cannot
change hands between any two parties. Payment can still be made in the form of
cash on the strength of an oral contract and a wink – effectively leaving no
paper trail. In intelligence lingo, this is known as “plausible deniability”.
Perhaps, the interviewer should have demanded, as a matter of record, an
unequivocal denial of any financial payment, cash or otherwise, to the paper,
which must survive from the profits that it makes from its work. The notion that
Cocobod, a corporate entity, would commission such a risky undertaking without
financial compensation to those involved does not altogether sound credible.
More reprehensible than the absence of full disclosure is the fact that the
security agencies, trained and equipped at considerable public expense to
identify and resolve national problems, rather chose to outsource their
responsibilities to a reporter equipped with nothing more than a hidden camera
and a disguise. If the level of professionalism and trust within the services
is that low, then perhaps we should disband and reconstitute them in the
national interest We can’t wait until the duties of the Minister of Defence
are handed over to a security guard before we act . It might be too late. The
invading army may already be on the doorsteps of the Castle!
And then there is the question of whether either investigation, besides its
video entertainment value, added any “excess content” to what successive
governments have long known about corruption at the ports and cocoa smuggling.
As stated in a previous article, as far back as 2007 the Ministry of Finance
hired a consultant to unearth the rot at Tema Port. Presumably, the consultant
submitted his report to the Ministry. What happened to it? Were the
recommendations acted upon, or was the report flung into some office corner – as
so many expensive reports are?
Ghanaians deserve an answer.
Much, too, was already known at the highest levels of government about cocoa
smuggling in the country. On September 5th, 2008, the Minister of Finance
chaired a meeting of the Producer Price Review Committee in which cocoa
smuggling was discussed at length. The minutes to the meeting stated the
following:
“It was agreed that a committee made up of relevant stakeholders, namely: CEPS,
COCOBOD, LBCs, Farmers, DCEs of border towns among others be set up to draw up a
sustainable strategic plan to combat smuggling.”
Again, Ghanaians deserve to know what happened to this initiative. Is there a
"sustainable strategic plan" and if so what became of it?
If ever there was a case for a comprehensive and relentless reform of the public
sector to ensure efficient and transparent use of scarce public resources, this
is it.
For COCOBOD, while it has already undergone extensive reforms since the 1980s,
including a reduction of its famously parasitic workforce by over 90%, there is
room for further reform.
The introduction of the Free Compulsory Universal Basic Education and other
policies, for example, renders redundant the so-called Cocoa Scholarship Scheme,
which has done little to enhance the educational fortunes of children of cocoa
farmers anyway. A government study in 2009 found that as much 54% of children
in cocoa-growing areas were “unable to read and write”. Giving the scholarship
money back to the farmers who produced it might serve better social ends.
Ditto the so-called Cocoa Farmers Housing Scheme. Give the money to the farmers
and let them decide what kind of housing they need or want.
At 12.5% (as of the 2008/2009 season), government/COCOBOD’s share of the net FOB
price of cocoa also seems excessively high, reducing the portion that goes to
farmers and creating the incentives for smuggling. By cutting down government's
take, abolishing the failed scholarship scheme, and scrapping the unnecessary
housing programme, among other reforms, more money can be paid to farmers, the
problem of smuggling will almost certainly disappear, and government revenue for
development should increase.
There are also broader socio-economic problems in the cocoa sector that require
urgent and honest government attention. Cash crop farmers, made up almost
entirely of cocoa farmers, remain the second poorest group in Ghana, after food
crop farmers. Researchers in 2006 estimated that “net cocoa profits on bearing
farms were actually 6 percent lower than those obtained in 1996”.
Of course not every cocoa farmer is poor, but 75% of farmers (mostly peasants
and farm hands) receive less than half of cocoa sector income, a fact that
partly explains the high and growing incidence of poverty in rural areas.
Such is the nature of the national development problem in general and the cocoa
sector in particular, and it can’t be solved through cheap publicity stunts. It
requires transparent and effective policy responses. It requires common sense.
Credit: Nii Moi Thompson
