Don’t credit score SML publicity to OSP; it performed no position – Dafeamakpor – Life Pulse Daily

Introduction

The allegation that the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) was the driving force behind the publicisation and eventual cancellation of the SML innovation assurance contract has sparked a heated debate in Ghanaian political circles. Rockson Dafeamakpor, the Majority Chief Whip of Parliament, has publicly warned against crediting the OSP for the publicity surrounding the SML scandal, insisting that the institution played no decisive role in exposing the controversy. This article unpacks the key statements, provides essential background, analyses the implications, and offers practical advice for citizens, journalists, and policymakers who wish to understand the issue beyond the headlines.

Key Points

Background

The SML Innovation Assurance Contract

The SML innovation assurance contract was a controversial public‑private partnership that promised to deliver innovative solutions for state‑run projects. Critics argued that the agreement lacked transparency, featured opaque pricing structures, and granted excessive discretion to private intermediaries. Over time, the contract became a focal point for public debate due to alleged irregularities in procurement procedures.

Role of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP)

Established under Ghana’s Special Prosecutor Act, 2016 (Act 959), the OSP is mandated to investigate and prosecute high‑level corruption cases involving public officials. While the OSP has investigated the SML arrangement, its involvement was reactive rather than initiatory. The office became aware of irregularities only after media reports and parliamentary scrutiny had already generated widespread public concern.

Political Context and Media Scrutiny

Ghana’s vibrant civil society and independent media have historically played a watchdog role in public‑sector procurement. In the months leading up to the contract’s cancellation, several newspapers and radio stations published detailed analyses that highlighted pricing anomalies and alleged conflicts of interest. These reports prompted parliamentary committees to summon officials and demand explanations, thereby creating a political environment that forced the executive to act.

Analysis

Public Perception versus Institutional Credit

Dafeamakpor’s statement reflects a broader discourse about how credit for anti‑corruption successes is assigned. He argues that attributing the SML publicity to the OSP creates a misleading narrative that downplays the contributions of civic organisations, journalists, and ordinary citizens who first raised the alarm. By emphasizing “civic vigilance and political will,” he underscores the importance of a multi‑stakeholder approach to transparency.

Legal Implications of OSP Allegations

The OSP has filed criminal charges against six former senior government officers, accusing them of conspiring to secure the SML contract through false representations and abuse of office. If convicted, the accused could face significant prison terms and fines, reinforcing the message that corrupt practices will be pursued aggressively. However, the legal process must respect due process, and the burden of proof remains on the prosecution to establish each element of the alleged offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Impact on Anti‑Corruption Enforcement

Dafeamakpor’s call for institutions to be evaluated by “measurable results” highlights a critical gap in Ghana’s anti‑corruption architecture: the difference between formal mandates and actual outcomes. The SML episode illustrates that merely having a specialized anti‑corruption body is insufficient; such bodies must demonstrate tangible improvements in public trust, recovery of misappropriated assets, and deterrence of future misconduct.

Media Responsibility and Public Discourse

Journalists covering the SML scandal have a duty to present balanced narratives that distinguish between allegation and proven wrongdoing. Overstating the OSP’s role could inadvertently undermine public confidence in legitimate investigations. Conversely, under‑reporting the civic pressure that forced governmental action risks marginalising the efforts of watchdog groups that serve as essential checks on power.

Practical Advice

For Citizens Engaged in Anti‑Corruption Advocacy

1. Verify information through multiple reputable sources before sharing claims about institutional involvement.
2. Support independent media outlets that provide investigative reporting on public contracts.
3. Participate in public consultations and parliamentary hearings to keep pressure on decision‑makers.

For Journalists and Content Creators

1. Use clear, keyword‑rich headings such as “OSP Did Not Drive SML Publicity – Dafeamakpor” to improve SEO and help readers find accurate information.
2. Cite primary sources, including official statements from the Office of the Special Prosecutor and parliamentary records, to avoid speculation.
3. Provide context by explaining the legal framework governing the OSP and the procedural steps of contract cancellation.

For Policymakers and Institutional Leaders

1. Publish transparent performance metrics that demonstrate the impact of anti‑corruption agencies.
2. Establish open‑data portals for public procurement to allow citizen scrutiny.
3. Encourage regular dialogue between the OSP, parliament, and civil society to align mandates with measurable outcomes.

FAQ

Conclusion

The controversy surrounding the SML innovation assurance contract illustrates the complexities of attributing credit in anti‑corruption battles. Rockson Dafeamakpor’s warning serves as a reminder that institutions like the Office of the Special Prosecutor are part of a larger ecosystem that includes media, civil society, and political leadership. While the OSP has pursued legal action against alleged perpetrators, the public outcry that forced the contract’s termination underscores the power of collective civic engagement. For a healthy democracy, it is essential that credit be assigned based on verified contributions, and that all stakeholders—government, media, and citizens—work together to ensure transparent, accountable, and results‑driven governance.