Politics, accountability, transparency in Ghana

The arrest and detention of politically exposed persons is a public spectacle in Ghana.

There is a recurring pattern in this respect: incoming governments begin with investigations into officials of outgoing administrations accused of corruption and malfeasance; the opposition party cries “foul”, calling investigations a “witch-hunt”.

Political figures’ legal troubles often spark a loud public outcry, while similar travails of ordinary citizens do not get the same degree of public attention.

How can Ghana break this cycle and ensure that the transition of power is characterised by accountability, transparency and a genuine pursuit of justice, rather than partisan politics influencing investigations?

Transparency

It is generally recognised that Ghana has matured its democratic processes during the Fourth Republic, although this does not imply that all democratic structures and processes function unproblematically.

Civil society organisations, religious organisations, netizens and scholars agree that Ghana still has a long way to go in relation to some democratic procedures, including accountability and transparency and powerful political actors. 

According to the Open Government partnership, an international organisation which brings together government, civil society, business, non-profits, and more, transparency is said to occur when “government-held information (including on activities and decisions) is open, comprehensive, timely, freely available to the public, and meets basic open data standards (e.g. raw data, machine readability) where formats allow.”

Transparency empowers citizens to exercise their rights, hold the government accountable, and participate in decision-making processes.

Civil rights

While Ghana has comparatively good measures of civil and political rights, there are still (very) high levels of corruption and (very) low – and perhaps declining – levels of transparency.

A standard political science definition of political accountability lays great stress on the formal institutional and procedural realm, including civil society and citizens’ ability to sanction the politically powerful, most obviously via periodic elections.

The political scientist, Professor Staffan Lindberg, a key figure in the Sweden-based V-Dem (‘Varieties of Democracy’) institute, attempts to simplify the core concept of accountability.

Lindberg argues for a mechanism to hold an agent — most obviously, the government — to account for its decisions and if necessary, to impose sanctions, including removing those in power, if they behave egregiously and consistently in ways which are not democratically acceptable, accountable or transparent. 

However, while such a definition of political accountability and transparency emphasises institutions’ procedural effectiveness, it fails to consider how individuals in maturing democracies, such as that of Ghana, understand the concept of accountability and how they should act in order to hold their leaders to account.

Political accountability

Ghana’s ongoing struggle with political accountability is exemplified by the cases of Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi and former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta.

These examples reveal the extent to which political influence shapes the responsiveness and impartiality of state institutions, particularly when those implicated are aligned with the ruling government.

In 2022, anti-illegal mining campaigners, including lawyer Martin Kpebu and engineer Kenneth Ashigbey, petitioned the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service to investigate Akonta Mining Ltd, a company reportedly linked to Chairman Wontumi.

Allegations centred around illegal mining operations, including activity in forest reserves. Despite the seriousness of these claims, the investigation stalled with little public explanation—raising concerns about selective justice and institutional inaction when political elites are involved.

Renewed petition

Following a change of government in 2025, under President John Mahama’s administration, the same advocates renewed their petition to the CID. This time, the response was swift: Wontumi was invited for questioning and subsequently detained for six days.

Critics argue that this development reflects a broader trend in Ghanaian politics, where accountability mechanisms are only activated once a political figure is no longer shielded by incumbency.

Further complicating matters, individuals reportedly linked to Wontumi were also arrested in January 2025 over alleged involvement in orchestrated market fires in parts of the country, adding another layer of scrutiny to his actions.

Multiple allegations

In parallel, Ken Ofori-Atta's case demonstrates similar challenges regarding accountability within Ghana’s political landscape. As the former Finance Minister, he faces investigations by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) related to multiple corruption allegations, including contracts with Strategic Mobilisation Ghana Limited, issues surrounding the National Cathedral project and ambulance procurement irregularities.

After leaving Ghana in January 2025 for medical treatment, Mr Ofori-Atta failed to respond to multiple summonses from the OSP, raising questions about the effectiveness and independence of institutions tasked with holding political figures accountable.

These cases underscore the profound implications of political influence on the accountability mechanisms in Ghana.

Transition periods should be catalysts for genuine justice, yet, as evidenced here, they can often become stages for selective accountability, exacerbating divisions rather than fostering transparency.

Systemic weaknesses

The cases of Chairman Wontumi and Ken Ofori-Atta expose the systemic weaknesses in Ghana’s accountability landscape.

To break the cycle of selective justice and politically motivated investigations, Ghana must strengthen the independence of oversight institutions and insulate them from partisan pressures.

Doing so will not only enhance transparency and uphold the rule of law but also restore public confidence in democratic governance and the principle that no one is above the law.

The writers are Emeritus Professor of Politics, London Metropolitan University, UK and a Political Scientist.