CDD-Ghana Fellow and legal scholar Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare has questioned the decision to impose noncustodial sentences on four persons convicted of corruption-related offences in the Northern Development Authority (NDA) procurement case, arguing that the absence of financial loss should not automatically justify leniency.
In a commentary published under his “GOGO’s Take” platform, Professor Asare maintained that deliberate attempts to manipulate public procurement processes undermine institutional integrity, even when investigators intervene before payments are made.
He argued that sentencing should reflect the seriousness of the offences, deter similar conduct and reinforce accountability for public officials and their private-sector collaborators.
“The criminal law protects more than the public purse. It also protects the integrity of public institutions and the trust citizens place in public officials.”
CDD-Ghana Fellow Challenges Court’s Sentencing Decision
The legal scholar’s criticism follows the conviction of four persons by a High Court in Tamale on October 23, 2026, for seven out of eleven counts involving procurement-related corruption and conspiracy.
The convicts are Sumaila Abdul-Rahman, former Chief Executive of the Northern Development Authority; Stephen Yir-Eru Engmen, former Deputy Chief Executive in charge of Operations; Patrick Seidu, former Deputy Chief Executive in charge of Finance and Administration; and Andrew Kuundaari, Chief Executive of A&QS Consortium Limited.
The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) prosecuted the case following investigations into a complaint filed by legal practitioner Martin Kpebu.
The court imposed 1,000 penalty units for each count but declined to impose custodial sentences, citing the advanced ages of the convicts and the fact that the OSP’s intervention prevented unlawful payments, resulting in no financial loss to the Republic.
Professor Asare, however, argued that the absence of financial loss does not necessarily diminish the seriousness of procurement offences. He maintained that the criminality lies not only in the loss of public funds but also in attempts to compromise the processes through which public resources are allocated.
Procurement Law Recognises Seriousness of Offences
Professor Asare cited Section 92 of the Public Procurement Act, 2003 (Act 663), as amended, arguing that Parliament had deliberately criminalised conduct intended to undermine fair and transparent procurement.
According to his interpretation, the provision allows for a fine of up to 2,500 penalty units, imprisonment for up to five years, or both, where no other penalty is prescribed.
He also highlighted Section 92(2), which criminalises conduct including collusion or attempted collusion to inflate tender prices, influencing or attempting to influence procurement processes to obtain an unfair advantage, and manipulating procurement documents.
Professor Asare argued that these offences do not necessarily require a contract to be awarded, a payment to be made, financial loss to occur or an offender to obtain personal enrichment before criminal liability arises.
“Parliament criminalized the conduct because the integrity of public procurement deserves protection in its own right,” he argued. He maintained that procurement safeguards exist to protect competition, fairness, transparency, value for money and public confidence in the management of state resources.
No Financial Loss Should Not Automatically Reduce Punishment
The legal scholar distinguished between the absence of an aggravating factor and the presence of a mitigating factor, arguing that the two should not be treated as interchangeable in sentencing decisions.
He acknowledged that actual financial loss could aggravate an offence but questioned why the absence of loss should substantially reduce punishment when the law criminalises the conduct itself.
In his view, the central harm in procurement corruption is the deliberate compromise of a system intended to ensure that public spending is conducted fairly and transparently. “The offense is not necessarily stealing public money. It is corrupting the process by which public money is spent,” he stated.
Professor Asare further argued that the OSP’s success in preventing unlawful payments should not automatically become a sentencing advantage for the convicts.
He distinguished between offenders who voluntarily abandon criminal conduct and those whose actions are stopped by law enforcement, suggesting that the latter circumstance demonstrates the effectiveness of enforcement rather than reduced culpability.
The intervention, he argued, prevented the financial consequences but did not erase the offences for which the individuals were convicted.
Advanced Age Is Not Immunity From Imprisonment
Professor Asare also challenged the weight given to the convicts’ advanced ages, stressing that age should be considered alongside other circumstances rather than treated as an automatic reason to avoid imprisonment.
He acknowledged that courts must consider factors such as age, health and frailty when determining appropriate sentences. However, he argued that senior public officials carry significant responsibilities because of the authority and experience associated with their positions.
“Age may justify leniency, but it should not automatically outweigh the gravity of deliberate abuse of public trust,” he stated. He warned that relying too heavily on age could weaken the deterrent effect of criminal sanctions where public officials deliberately undermine procurement safeguards.
CDD-Ghana Fellow Calls for Proportionate, Deterrent Sentencing
Professor Asare maintained that custodial sentences can serve purposes that financial penalties alone may not achieve, including punishment, deterrence and reinforcing public accountability.
He cautioned that if officials believe they face only fines whenever investigators prevent unlawful payments, deliberate procurement misconduct could become a calculated risk.
However, Professor Asare acknowledged that not every technical procurement breach warrants imprisonment, stressing that sentences must remain individualised and proportionate to the offences committed.
His central argument is that serious and deliberate procurement criminality may warrant custodial sentences even where no financial loss occurs and no personal enrichment is established.
Concluding his commentary, Professor Asare urged the public to recognise that the law protects institutional integrity as well as public finances. He argued that the successful prevention of financial loss should be celebrated without allowing the effectiveness of law enforcement to become a reason for overlooking the seriousness of the underlying criminal conduct.
His intervention adds to public debate over how courts should balance mitigating circumstances against deterrence and accountability in corruption cases involving public procurement.
READ ALSO: World Bank Warns Ghana’s Recovery Remains Fragile Despite 6% Growth
