PLAYBACK: Barker-Vormawor denies directing bribery allegation at Parliament’s Appointments Committee
Social activist Oliver Barker-Vormawor has clarified that his recent bribery allegations were not aimed at Parliament’s Appointments Committee, following widespread backlash over a social media post he made.
The controversy erupted after Barker-Vormawor suggested that ministerial nominees were required to make payments to the Committee before securing approval. In a post on his Facebook page, he wrote: *So all the monies the ministerial appointees are being asked to pay to the Appointments Committee just to get approved, are those ones not affected by ORAL? Strange Republic.*
Many interpreted the statement as an accusation against the Committee, prompting Chairman Bernard Ahiafor to direct the Clerk of the Committee to summon Barker-Vormawor to provide evidence.
Appearing before the Committee on Wednesday, January 29, his legal counsel, Nana Ato Dadzie, dismissed the allegations, insisting that the activist’s comments had been misconstrued.
“The point of that statement is that it was not directed at the Appointments Committee in any way. It was only intended to expose certain matters that had come to his notice—acts that some people were apparently engaging in, which may not enhance transparency,” Dadzie explained.
He further argued that the post carried a double meaning and should not be seen as an attack on the Committee’s integrity.
“It was never his intention to disparage the Appointments Committee, and one can clearly say that the statement has a double meaning. If anything, it was a statement from a whistleblower indicating that certain things are happening,” he added.
The allegations stirred public debate, particularly ahead of the vetting of Defence Minister-designate Dr Edward Omane Boamah.
Chairman Bernard Ahiafor strongly rejected the claims, describing them as unfounded and damaging to the integrity of Parliament’s vetting process.
Barker-Vormawor’s clarification comes as Parliament continues to uphold its commitment to due process and transparency in the appointment of government officials.