The Pusiga BECE mock examination papers brouhaha

Following reports that the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Buffer stock elected to sponsor the mock examination for Basic Education Certificate Examination (BECE) candidates in the Pusiga District.

For unexplainable reasons, his photograph was littered on the examination papers in contravention with provisions of the 1992 constitution, the Children's rights act of 1998, and the Ghana Education Service (GES) regulations.

Therefore, the gesture of the Buffer stock CEO is thought to be politically motivated. As such, a private citizen from Deega; a suburb of Pusiga, had reason to petition the Director of Education (DDE) and District Chief Executive (DCE) of Pusiga to stop the usage of those photograph embossed mock examination papers. The development created heavy traffic on our media channels from the 25th of August 2022.

Apparently, the NPP MP for Yendi has also recently sponsored a mock examination for final BECE candidates in his constituency without embossing his photograph on the examination papers as is the case with the Buffer stock CEO.

Noting from the broadcaster that: in their quest to ensure equity and to satisfy provisions of the media ethics and code of conduct of journalism, the parties that matter were pursued for their side of the story to no avail. Therefore, a second opinion was sought and the below was shared on a Pusiga base radio station; Winpang FM (106.5 FM).

Considering that Ghana has been a signatory to the United Nations Convention of the Rights (UNCRC) of the Child since the 29th of January 1990 and the first country in the world to ratify the treaty on 5th February 1990. Thus, committing to adopt the UNCRC articles 2, 3, & 4, elaborated in A CHILDREN'S RIGHTS 101 FOR POLITICIANS AND ORGANISERS OF POLITICAL
CAMPAIGNS, including but not limited to:

❖ A child cannot be a tool to achieve political goals.

❖ A child’s participation cannot be decided by adults.

❖ Children are not the target audience of political campaigns

❖ ‘Basic’ schools are no place for party politics.

❖ Active involvement of a child supposes that they are of a certain age and adequate maturity; children under the age of 14 (JHS Pupils) are not to be involved in political goals, such as winning votes, which is strictly forbidden.

❖ Politicians should not visit educational establishments during campaign periods: at other times, they should only accept invitations if it is for support of public education, and if they do not use this to propagate their political actions.

❖ Politicians should not send any gifts to children, their parents, or those working in public
education, or offer any other advantages, except if it is anonymous.

❖ The manipulation of children is forbidden. The direct (by school or parent) and indirect influence of children in order to reach political goals, such as winning votes, is strictly forbidden.

❖ Politicians should not take photos with children and should not support the public use of
these images.

❖ Avoid displaying children in a negative light and refrain from using hostile language or language that could result in incitement to hatred.

Subsequently, Ghana promulgated the 1992 constitution and catered for children's rights in article 28, in which their rights to education are clearly stated in 28 clause

(1)d: That children and young persons shall receive special protection against exposure to physical and moral hazards; including but not limited to political hazards (Emphasis mine). Then article 28 clause

(2): states that every child has the right to be protected from engaging in work that constitutes a threat to his health, education, or development.
Meanwhile, article 25 (1)a of the 1992 constitution speaks of Basic education shall be free, compulsory, and available to all. Enjoining parents to ensure that every child of school-going age is in school and the Government to that children’s educational needs are catted for, including tuition and examination fees.

In furtherance of the above, the Children's rights act of 1998, act 560, states:
The interest of the child shall be paramount in matters concerning Children (Sec 1, clause 2.1).

The best interest of the child shall be the primary consideration by any court, person, institution, or other body in any matter concerning a child (Sec 1, clause 2,2).

Therefore, the DDE and the DCE, have an unflinching responsibility to children in school.

The said Children’s act, act 560, Sec 16, clause (1), then empowers the DCE by stating that: A District Assembly shall protect the welfare and promote the rights of children within its area of authority, and shall ensure that within the district’s governmental agencies shall liaise with each other in matters concerning Children. Adding that (clause 2): The social welfare and/or
the community development department of the district shall investigate cases of contravention of children's rights.

Therefore, the DCE of Pusiga had an oversight responsibility to protect the children from being exposed to politicians by referring the education unit to the social welfare or community development department for advice. The DCE also now has an oversight responsibility to investigate this case as it pertains to children's rights.

Meanwhile, the Ghana Education Service Code of Conduct:

Paragraph 3.8b(iii): The DDE or any staff has a duty to not by any means, or action, compel students to know or identify with a politician or a politician's activity which they have no understanding of.

Paragraph 3.14 states: No staff (DDE/any teacher), shall use his/her position to spread his/herpolitical, religious, or other ideologies among students.

Paragraph 3.28: it is a misconduct for a staff to accept gifts/favours directly/indirectly from any person, if such gift may compromise the objective performance of his official function in ensuring that the children are not exposed to politicians and politics for that matter.

Clearly, misconduct has been committed.

Therefore, the DCE of Pusiga has failed in his oversight responsibility of protecting the minors before and after the printing of the BECE mock examination papers with the name and photograph of a known political actor for a so-called political motive. As such, the DCE must now be seen to be doing so by acting swiftly to recall those politically tainted examination papers.

Meanwhile, the DDE must bow his head in shame and do the needful, whilst the Regional Director of Education is expected to point his now compromised officer to the GES code of conduct because he has misconducted himself and as well disrespected the people of Pusiga on his claim of no wrongdoing and refusal to speak on the matter.

Unfortunately, the sponsor has not also seen the need to take the opportunity to explain his action to the people of Pusiga. Albeit his own party folks indicate that his actions in recent times are not just philanthropic gestures, but a nurturing of his political ambition to go through
Parliamentary primaries of his party.

Generally, people should be encouraged to emulate good examples of politicians who grant sponsorships without applying minors for their political advantage and not cite wrongdoings to justify their ills.