General News of Tuesday, 30 June 2009
Source: By Kweku Sefa Manu for The Insight
The government’s report into allegations against the former Minister of Youth and Sports, Alhaji Muntaka Mohammed, appears to be a classic case of an attempt to massage the facts. Firstly, the inability or failure of the government to release the full report by National Security raises serious questions regarding what really came out during the investigations. This failure gives the government the opportunity to present Alhaji Muntaka Mohammed as some hapless victim of monsters within the Ministry of Youth and Sports who were hell-bent on destroying him.
On the allegation that Alhaji Muntaka collected a per diem allowance of GH¢2,000 for a Ghana-Benin match in Kumasi, the President states: "This amount was authorized by the Chief Director, Mr Ampong, but the Minister had no knowledge of what his per diem for the travel was supposed to be." Is it not an indictment on the government that its Ministers were not provided with documentation of what their working conditions are, including allowances to which they are entitled? Is it acceptable that allowances and entitlements for Ministers are left to the whims and discretions of individual civil servants rather than a properly structured document which should be handed to the Minister on his or her appointment? If we are to accept this, would the Minister have accepted if he had been given GH¢1 instead of the GH¢2,000? In the same vein, would he have accepted it if he had been offered GH¢2,000,000 with the excuse that he did not know? The Government should say such things to the marines, not the discerning public.
The report attempts to blame the Chief Director of the Ministry for the payment, at taxpayer’s expense, of air fares for the Minister and his family for a private trip to Kumasi. The President’s statement claims that although it was the Minister who initiated the request (with a memo), it was the fault of the Chief Director that “he did not advise the Minister that his family was not entitled to these tickets.” The question arising from this is, who is in charge at the Ministry, the Minister or the Chief Director? Why should the Chief Director be blamed for an action that has been initiated by his boss? What a cop-out!
There is also the case of the GH¢674.02 for supermarket bills which the Alhaji’s household presented for a refund. Here too, the Chief Director is blamed for not vetting the receipt. The real question that arises is why should the Minister have presented the receipt in the first place? There too, he did not know? If the Alhaji did not intend that the taxpayer should foot the bill for baby food for his child, why did he not take a separate receipt for his baby food at the shop? What made him think, in the first place, that the taxpayer should pay him his regular salary, other allowances, and on top of all that, pay for any household expenses as well?
Regarding the official trip to Germany where the Minister took his lady friend, Ms. Edith Zinevali as part of the official delegation, the President is only “dissatisfied” about the fact that her visa fee was paid for by Ministry. It is sad that our President appears little concerned that as a member of the 4-person delegation to Germany, Ms. Edith Zinevali was also paid the following: