Section 4. Corruption and Lack of Transparency in Government
The law provides criminal penalties for corruption by government officials, but the government did not implement the law effectively, and officials frequently engaged in corrupt practices with impunity. There were numerous reports of government corruption during the year. Corruption was present in all branches of government, according to media and NGOs, and various reputable national and international surveys, such as the World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators and Afrobarometer, highlighted the prevalence of corruption in the country. In October Transparency International scored the country’s defense sector as being at “very high risk” for corruption, attributed in part to the fact that, despite robust legal frameworks, opacity and lack of implementation of oversight tools weakened protections against corruption.
As of September the CHRAJ had undertaken investigations for 19 cases of corruption, and taken decisions on them for appropriate action.
Following months of advocacy by civil society groups, in March Parliament passed the Right to Information Bill, which had languished for 20 years. In May the president signed it into law, with implementation expected to begin in January 2020. The law is intended to foster more transparency and accountability in public affairs.
In December 2018 the country launched the National Anticorruption online Reporting Dashboard, an online reporting tool for the coordination of all anticorruption efforts of various bodies detailed in the National Anticorruption Action Plan. A total of 169 governmental and nongovernmental organizations have used it to report on various efforts to stem corruption in the country.
Corruption: Authorities suspended the CEO of the Public Procurement Authority in August after a report by an investigative journalist revealed that he awarded contracts to companies he owned or worked with. The president filed a petition with the CHRAJ, requesting it investigate possible breaches of conflict of interest by the CEO. The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) also investigated.
According to the government’s Economic and Organized Crime Office as well as Corruption Watch, a campaign steered by the Ghana Center for Democratic Development, the country lost 9.7 billion cedis ($1.9 billion) to corruption between 2016 and 2018 in five controversial government contracts with private entities. In October deputy commissioner of the CHRAJ stated that 20 percent of the national budget and 30 percent of all procurement done by the state were lost to corruption annually.
There were credible reports police extorted money by acting as private debt collectors, setting up illegal checkpoints, and arresting citizens in exchange for bribes from disgruntled business associates of those detained. A study by the Ghana Integrity Initiative, conducted in 2016 and released in 2017, indicated that 61 percent of respondents had paid a bribe to police.
In 2017 the government established the OSP to investigate and prosecute corruption-related crimes. More than one year after being sworn into office the special prosecutor initiated some investigations but was criticized for lack of action. In the yearly budget the government allocated 180 million cedis ($34.6 million) to the OSP, but only disbursed half. Lack of office space remained a serious constraint on staffing the OSP.
Financial Disclosure: The constitution’s code of conduct for public officers establishes an income and asset declaration requirement for the head of state, ministers, cabinet members, members of parliament, and civil servants. All elected and some appointed public officials are required to make these declarations every four years and before leaving office. The CHRAJ commissioner has authority to investigate allegations of noncompliance with the law regarding asset declaration and take “such action as he considers appropriate.” Financial disclosures remain confidential unless requested through a court order. Observers criticized the financial disclosure regulation, noting that infrequent filing requirements, exclusion of filing requirements for family members of public officials, lack of public transparency, and absence of consequences for noncompliance undermined its effectiveness.