The Member of Parliament for Manhyia South Hon. Nana Baffour Adjei Awuah has expressed strong reservations about Operation Recover All Loots (ORAL) Committee, justifying why Minority members should boycott any invitation from the body.

His concerns are rooted in legal principles and the constitutional protections afforded to individuals in Ghana.

Hon. Nana Baffour Adjei Awuah began by emphasizing the importance of Ghana’s legal framework in safeguarding citizens’ rights, particularly in matters that could lead to prosecution. He stated;

“We need to appreciate one thing, a country called Ghana is a country which is the creation of laws. Especially anything that would lead to criminal prosecution, we need to approach it with tact.”
Hon. Nana Baffour Adjei Awuah Member of Parliament for Manhyia South

He underscored the constitutional provision that grants individuals the right to remain silent when arrested, highlighting that this is a fundamental protection against self-incrimination.

The MP raised critical questions about the legitimacy and the establishment of ORAL. He queried;

“When a body is set up, with the mandate which can potentially lead to criminal prosecution and subsequently conviction and sentence, we need to make sure that we put it under the lens of the law and that it meets the standard required by the law. The question we need to ask ourselves is, is ORAL up there in terms of that standard? First and foremost, the ORAL was set up by President Mahama even before he was sworn in as president. What mandate was he exercising?”
Hon. Nana Baffour Adjei Awuah Member of Parliament for Manhyia South

Hon. Adjei Awuah further criticized the composition of ORAL, questioning the professional credibility of its members.

“If you look at the composition of ORAL, none of them has the expertise of an investigator. An investigative journalist is not the same as a criminal investigator. We need to distinguish the two.”
Hon. Nana Baffour Adjei Awuah Member of Parliament for Manhyia South

Moreover, the MP highlighted the existence of established legal bodies designed to handle criminal investigations. He questioned why ORAL was necessary when appropriate state institutions were already in place. He added;

“President Mahama in opposition said that he was going to work with the special prosecutor. Is the office of the special prosecutor collapsed? If you think that you want people to gather evidence for any criminal or investigations that you probably want to pursue, why didn’t you direct that they go to the Office of the Special Prosecutor? Besides, you have the Economic and Organized Crime Organization (EOCO) which is also set up by law. You have the Financial Crime Unit, that is the FIC.”
Hon. Nana Baffour Adjei Awuah Member of Parliament for Manhyia South

Concerns About ORAL’s Legal Mandate Versus State Institutions

“All these institutions have been created by law. Their mandate is spelled out by law. The manner in which they carry out their work is also spelled out by law. And so, if EOCO invites me today, in going to EOCO, I know what I’m up against. If the Special Prosecutor invites me today, in going to the Special Prosecutor’s Office, I know what I am up against. If you go to ORAL right now, do you know what you are up against?”
Hon. Nana Baffour Adjei Awuah Member of Parliament for Manhyia South

The MP expressed apprehensions about the potential misuse of ORAL, drawing parallels with past abuses. He recounted;

“Once upon a time, the NDC’s parent, which is the PNDC, had a whole citizen vetting committee. We know what they used that for. They used that and abused [citizens].”
Hon. Nana Baffour Adjei Awuah Member of Parliament for Manhyia South

He cautioned against the possible reintroduction of such tribunals, which could undermine the rights and freedoms of individuals.

Hon. Nana Baffour Adjei Awuah’s critique of ORAL is deeply rooted in the principles of legal accountability and the protection of individual rights.

His call for the Minority to boycott invitations from ORAL stems from a desire to ensure that any investigative body operates within the established legal frameworks that uphold the Constitution and prevent potential abuses.

His arguments emphasized the importance of adhering to the legal standards set by existing institutions and maintaining transparency and accountability in any investigative process.