NPP supporter Patrick Kwarteng Sarpong, popularly known as P.K Sarpong, has reignited the debate over government scholarships, calling out what he describes as selective outrage from critics of the Akufo-Addo administration.
According to him, the same voices that condemned the government for funding certain MPs’ short courses abroad through the GETFund scholarship scheme are now silent after revelations that law lecturer and Deputy Attorney General Designate Dr. Justice Srem-Sai benefited from a full GETFund scholarship for his PhD.
Sarpong recalled how the Akufo-Addo administration was accused of misusing funds when some MPs were sponsored for international short courses.
“Critics of the Akufo-Addo administration went agog, accusing the government of wasting monies on some MPs when they embarked on short courses abroad through a scholarship scheme from GETFund.”
Patrick Kwarteng Sarpong
He lamented the hypocrisy of the media, which he claimed was vocal against past beneficiaries linked to the NPP but is now silent on similar cases involving individuals linked to the opposition.
Silence From Critics Sparks Questions
Furthermore, P.K Sarpong pointed out that many media practitioners had condemned the government for not prioritizing those who genuinely needed financial support for their studies.
“Just yesterday, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, at his vetting, admitted to having benefited from a full scholarship from GETFund for his PhD. GETFund was paying £20,000 per year for the program. I have monitored the media landscape following the admission to sample views and reactions of these critics.”
Patrick Kwarteng Sarpong
He expressed surprise at the absence of the same critical voices who had previously denounced the funding of MPs’ courses, noting that their silence was telling.
“I am more than nonplussed over the loud silence of those critics who said it was unconscionable for the state to fund the education or programs of people who had the capacity to pay for themselves.”
Patrick Kwarteng Sarpong
Sarpong also took issue with the Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA), questioning why such a well-established institution with substantial financial resources failed to support its own lecturers in furthering their education.
He expressed disbelief that GIMPA, despite its reputation and funding capacity, did not invest in upgrading the qualifications of its academic staff.
Additionally, he argued that the scrutiny directed at past scholarship recipients appeared to be politically motivated rather than rooted in genuine concerns about fairness or merit.
Should Government Fund Lecturers’ Education?
While Sarpong framed the debate as an issue of hypocrisy, not everyone agrees with his perspective.
Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare, a Democracy and Development Fellow at CDD-Ghana, challenged Sarpong’s stance, insisting that funding university lecturers for PhD programs should not be compared to sponsoring MPs for short courses.
“Respectfully, I must disagree with you on your take on funding university lecturers to do PhD programs and sponsoring MPs to do short courses. It seems you are straining too hard to interpret everything through a political lens.”
Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare
Prof. Asare emphasized that government scholarships for lecturers have long been a fundamental part of Ghana’s education system, dating back to the country’s independence.
Reflecting on his own experience at the University of Ghana, he noted that he could have taken advantage of such opportunities but chose to pursue a different path.
He underscored the significance of investing in educators, as they play a crucial role in shaping future generations through their teaching and mentorship.
“Why should we not recognize the value of investing in individuals who pursue PhDs and return to train the next generation? If we cannot appreciate this without reducing it to politics, then we risk undermining the very foundation of intellectual and national development.”
Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare
Prof. Asare expressed his support for funding lecturers’ PhD programs but held a different view when it came to MPs receiving sponsorship for short courses.
He hinted at his disapproval by recalling advice he once received—if there was nothing positive to say, it was better to remain silent.
He argued that university sponsorships should be based on merit and not political affiliations.
“Of course, it matters little to me what political affiliation university lecturers being sponsored belong to, as long as the process adheres to a transparent and merit-based system set by the university.
“Higher education thrives when investments in academic advancement are guided by fairness and national interest rather than political considerations.”
Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare
Prof. Asare stopped short of directly condemning the practice of politicians receiving sponsorships for short training programs but made his disapproval clear.
He remarked that when it came to MPs benefiting from public funds for brief courses, he preferred to remain silent, regardless of their political affiliation.
Some issues, he implied, were self-explanatory and did not require further debate.
A Controversy That Won’t Fade
The debate over GETFund scholarships is unlikely to die down anytime soon, especially as political actors continue to scrutinize government spending.
The fundamental question remains: Should taxpayer money be used to fund the academic advancement of professionals and politicians alike? Or should there be stricter eligibility criteria?
While Sarpong sees hypocrisy in the selective outrage over scholarship beneficiaries, Prof. Asare insists that investing in PhDs benefits the nation far more than funding short courses for politicians.
As public discourse continues, one thing is certain—the debate over how public funds are allocated to education will remain a contentious issue.
READ ALSO: Investors Trade Over GHS 33M on GSE, Market Indices Stay Flat
