A luckless coincidence — Lessons from the Airbus scandal
It goes without saying that in an election year where voters are just four months shy of deciding whether to vote for either the Vice-President, Dr Mahamudu Bawumia, or the former President, John Dramani Mahama, the latter must be heaving a sigh of relief with the findings of the Office of the Special Prosecutor’s (OSP’s) investigation into the Airbus Scandal.
Advertisement
The former president has consistently and strongly denied any of the allegations as stated in the Director of the Serious Fraud Office v. Airbus SE (UK case) and United States of America v. Airbus SE (US case).
Any adverse findings from the OSP’s investigations would have proved to be politically fatal. There is no doubt in my mind that his political opponents would have seized on it to further make the case of why they believe he is unsuitable for the highest office of the land.
Even then, the revelation, or others might say confirmation, by the OSP that “Government Official1” referred to in the UK and US cases is him (JDM) has already been seized upon.
I have read the full 25-page report and learned that the “The OSP interviewed former President John Dramani Mahama on January 5, 2024 in Accra." This strongly signals a man who believed in his innocence.
More importantly he had enough respect for the institution and willingly cooperated with the investigation. This is how strong institutions are built and sustained.
The partisans will fight this out and what it means or otherwise, politically. But beyond this scandal and the accompanying narratives over the last four years, are some important lessons I hope our public officials (elected and unelected) will learn from this.
Lessons from the scandal
Lesson One- The appearance test vs. The legal test. I have on countless occasions referenced this binary test in examining the actions of our public officials, especially in matters of conflict of interest.
Other Trending Stories
Far too often, our public officials seem to focus exclusively on the legal test (do the laws and rules prevent this action) at the expense of the appearance test (how does this look in the eyes of the public).
And once the legal test is passed, no consideration is given to the appearance test. Granted, no public official should be constrained from doing what they sincerely believe is right but a little more sensitivity to the appearance test will go a long way to save them from political scandal.
The OSP notes “Therefore, it seems that Foster’s Airbus intermediary role at the time his brother served as the Vice-President of Ghana was a case of luckless coincidence that attracted the disapproval of the UK and US authorities.”
Why did it attract the disapproval of UK and US authorities? It did because in those jurisdictions and from a good governance perspective, the brother of a sitting Vice-President who serves as an intermediary in a commercial deal where the said brother has significant decision-making power, appears improper even if legal.
We may be tempted to argue Ghana is not the UK or US but these potential conflict of interest cases cannot always be subjected to a legal test. Our public officials will do themselves a lot of good if they start paying attention to the appearance test.
Lesson Two – Government transactions and the role of intermediaries. The many scandals and alleged cases of corruption throughout the 4th Republic tend to name private actors. Our penchant for using private actors to help in completing government commercial transactions must be critically re-examined.
Do these third parties become a part of these transactions because our public officials lack capacity when it comes to negotiating certain commercial transactions? If so, how do we engage their services in ways that ensure transparency and accountability without the appearance of public officials being compromised?
If you read both the US and UK cases, they do not allege payments to Government Official 1. Rather their assertion is Airbus made payments to intermediaries to court favour with government officials. Recall my previous point about the appearance test.
Now do you see how easy it is to conclude such payments were not meant only for the intermediaries but the government officials involved.
Lesson Three – The fight against corruption. The fight against corruption must tackle certain basic things in our governance architecture – code of conduct for public officials; our procurement practices; rules about conflict of interest; and the use of intermediaries in commercial transactions.
And both sides of our political aisle must endeavour to build consensus on these things if we are to move the needle significantly forward in the fight against corruption.
In addition, there must be commitment to enforce these rules once in place. Without strengthening these aspects of our governance architecture, public officials will continue to be embroiled in scandals that are avoidable.
The writer is the Project Director, Democracy Project
Advertisement