Political patronage? A Look at Akuffo-Addo's last-minute ambassadorial appointments

Pulse Editor's Opinion

President Nana Addo Dankwa Akuffo-Addo’s recent appointment of Nana Bediatuo Asante, his hitherto Executive Secretary, as Ambassador-at-large just six months before the upcoming election has raised several questions and criticisms. This decision has prompted public debate about its wisdom and potential benefits. Critics argue that such an appointment appears to be more about political patronage than serving the national interest.

The role of an Ambassador-at-Large is often ambiguous, and in this case, the timing and necessity of the appointment are particularly questionable. With only half a year left before the election, what significant impact can Bediatuo realistically achieve in such a short period? This concern is compounded by the fact that his position comes with the same conditions and perks as those of substantive ambassadors who represent Ghana in other countries. Given the nation's strained economic resources, many are asking whether this is a prudent use of state funds.

Furthermore, the track record of previous appointees raises additional doubts. For instance, what has become of PNC's Dr Edward Mahama, who was appointed as an ambassador plenipotentiary in 2017? Is he still in his post, and what tangible contributions has he made since his appointment? These questions underscore a broader scepticism about the efficacy and accountability of such roles.

In addition to Bediatuo, several other ambassadors have been appointed, including Vice Admiral Seth Amoama to Nigeria, Mrs Francisca Ashietey-Oduntun to South Africa, Mr Ernest Yaw Amporful to Rwanda, and others to key positions in Turkey, Belgium, Morocco, Norway, Ethiopia, and the African Union. The appointees, comprising three High Commissioners, five Ambassadors, and one Ambassador-at-Large, have been entrusted with the critical task of representing Ghana in various countries and international organisations. However, the strategic rationale behind these appointments remains unclear.

“Part of your responsibilities, at the multilateral level, is to work with the governments of your accreditation to assist in the prosecution of our common agenda in the fight against the scourge of armed conflicts, terrorism and violent extremism, the threats of climate change, and the illicit outflow of funds from Africa,” the President told the new envoys. But how feasible are all these tasks within the next six months when this government's term will end, compared to the economic cost to the country?

Professor Baffour Agyeman-Duah, a former senior governance advisor at the UN and a co-founder of the Ghana Center for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), has suggested that these appointments are more about satisfying the ambassadorial ambitions of party loyalists than addressing the nation's diplomatic needs. This assertion resonates with many who see these decisions as reckless and self-serving, particularly in light of the country's economic challenges. Critics argue that the government appears indifferent to the severe economic damage it has caused and is instead focused on catering to parochial desires at the expense of the nation's well-being.

As the country prepares for the upcoming election, the timing and nature of these appointments highlight a pressing need for greater transparency and accountability in governmental decisions. The government must prioritise national interest over political expediency to ensure that the country's resources are used effectively and responsibly.

Pulse Editor's Opinion

Read Full Story