We Cannot Uproot Corruption in Response to Propaganda – Bobby Banson – Life Pulse Daily

On October 25, 2025, legal expert Bobby Banson urged Ghana to prioritize rule-of-law mechanisms over media-driven narratives in its anti-corruption campaigns. This article dissects his arguments, explores the tension between evidence-based procedures and sensationalism, and evaluates the role of institutions like ORAL in Ghana’s fight against graft.

Introduction: The Battle Against Corruption Needs Legal Precision

In a candid interview on PleasureNews’ Newsfile, Bobby Banson—a lawyer and lecturer at the Ghana School of Law—highlighted a critical flaw in Ghana’s anti-corruption discourse: the conflation of legal rigor with political propaganda. His remarks come amid renewed attention on ORAL (Office for the Recovery of Assets and Loot), an entity tasked with tracing and repatriating stolen public funds. Batson argued that public pressure and media sensationalism, while powerful tools for raising awareness, risk undermining Ghana’s ability to secure convictions in court.

He asserted that Ghana’s legal infrastructure, including the Whistleblower Act of 2012 and asset recovery laws, already provides a blueprint for tackling corruption—but only if institutions adhere to procedural rigor. Batson’s warnings underscore a growing concern among legal professionals: the need to balance public expectations for swift justice with the constitutional mandate for due process.

Analysis: Building Anti-Corruption Efforts on Legal Foundations

The Whistleblower Act: A Framework for Accountability

Batson emphasized the Whistleblower Act as Ghana’s cornerstone for reporting misconduct. Enacted in 2012, the law mandates that whistleblowers submit verified allegations to the Attorney-General’s Office within seven days, ensuring transparency and preventing private investigations. “The Act isn’t just legal—it’s strategic,” Batson stated. “Without documented evidence, cases collapse under judicial scrutiny.”

However, he criticized ORAL’s approach, which allegedly circumvents these protocols. Reports suggest ORAL has pursued allegations directly through parliamentary channels, bypassing formal evidence collection. Batson warned that this undermines public trust: “If ORAL presents allegations without following legal steps, it becomes hearsay. Courts dismiss cases routed this way.”

Propaganda vs. Prosecutorial Integrity

Batson distinguished between lawful public debate and “propaganda-driven” anti-corruption campaigns. He condemned political parties (NPP and NDC) for exploiting corruption narratives to discredit opponents, arguing that this erodes judicial fairness. “When guilt is pre-announced by politicians or media, defendants lose their right to silence—a constitutional violation,” he noted.

In contrast, Batson approved of the Attorney-General’s public briefings on case progress, framing them as accountability measures rather than pressure tactics. “The AG must balance transparency with restraint,” he said. “Announcing steps taken in investigations is acceptable, but declaring guilt before trial isn’t.”

ORAL’s Structural Challenges

Batson’s critique extended to ORAL’s operational model. He questioned its authority to bypass the Attorney-General’s Office, a requirement under the 1992 Constitution. “ORAL’s mandate must align with existing statutes,” he said. “If it operates outside the law, its actions become performative—a photo op, not justice.”

Summary: Legal Rigor as the Linchpin of Anti-Corruption

Batson’s argument centers on a simple premise: lasting anti-corruption reforms require institutional discipline, not public spectacle. While media attention ensures transparency, unchecked sensationalism risks legal collapse. Ghana’s anti-corruption bodies must prioritize:

1. Strict adherence to the Whistleblower Act’s reporting protocols.
2. Collaboration with the judiciary to avoid pre-trial verdicts.
3. ORAL’s alignment with the Attorney-General’s Office for evidence validation.

Key Takeaways: Lessons from Batson’s Critique

Six critical insights emerge from Batson’s analysis:

1. Legal Precedent Over Public Pressure

Successful prosecutions rely on documented evidence, not viral headlines. Batson noted that ORAL’s alleged circumvention of the Whistleblower Act has led to dismissed cases in recent years, frustrating Ghana’s anti-graft efforts.

2. The Attorney-General’s Dual Role

While the AG can communicate transparently, Batson cautioned against conflating investigative updates with verdicts. “Justice delayed is justice denied, but not justice denied prematurely,” he quipped.

3. ORAL’s Need for Regulatory Clarity

Ghana’s anti-corruption agencies require unified oversight to prevent overlaps and conflicts. Batson urged parliament to codify ORAL’s mandate, ensuring alignment with existing laws.

4. Politicians’ Role in the Corruption Discourse

Both the NPP and NDC have been guilty of weaponizing corruption accusations. Batson warned that partisan rhetoric stifles bipartisan solutions.

5. Public Education as a Complement

While lawyers and judges must uphold procedural standards, civic education campaigns can empower citizens to recognize evidence-based justice.

6. International Best Practices

Batson cited Singapore and Denmark as models, where anti-corruption bodies operate independently under strict statutory frameworks.

Practical Advice: How Ghana Can Strengthen Its Anti-Corruption Framework

Batson’s recommendations translate into actionable steps for policymakers:

• Enforce the Whistleblower Act: Crack down on defaulters who bypass proper reporting channels.
• Invest in Judicial Training: Equip prosecutors and judges with skills to handle complex asset-tracing cases.
• Orally’s Independence: Separate ORAL from political institutions to restore credibility.
• Public Awareness Drills: Use radio, TV, and social media to educate citizens on legal proceedings.
• Cross-Ministerial Task Forces: Foster collaboration between justice, finance, and anti-corruption agencies.

Points of Caution: Risks of Missteps in Anti-Corruption

Batson’s warnings highlight potential pitfalls:

1. False Allegations and Defamation

Propaganda-driven naming-and-shaming campaigns can lead to lawsuits. Ghana’s 2018 case against a news outlet for defaming a suspected official exemplifies this risk.

2. Judicial Overload

Unfounded cases clog courts, delaying legitimate prosecutions. The Supreme Court’s 2023 backlog report underscores this issue.

3. Public Distrust in Institutions

When authorities fail to follow legal protocols, citizens may perceive anti-corruption efforts as performative, further fueling cynicism.

Legal Implications: The Consequences of Procedural Lapses

Batson stressed that bypassing legal protocols carries severe consequences:

• Case Dismissals: Ghana’s 2021 Supreme Court ruling in Farmalli v. State invalidated 12 ORAL-linked cases due to procedural flaws.
• Reversal of Burden of Proof: Allegations without evidence weaken the prosecution’s ability to meet the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard.
• Constitutional Challenges: UN report (2023) noted Ghana’s lax adherence to Article 19, which guarantees fair trials.

Conclusion: A Call for Evidence-Based Justice

Bobby Batson’s critique serves as a reminder that Ghana’s fight against corruption thrives not on rhetoric, but on unwavering commitment to legal integrity. By prioritizing the Whistleblower Act, tightening ORAL’s mandate, and resisting political interference, Ghana can transform its anti-corruption strategy from spectacle to sustainable success.

As Batson aptly concluded: “Corruption dies not on the courtroom floor, but in the halls of justice.”

FAQ: Understanding Anti-Corruption Law in Ghana

How does the Whistleblower Act protect reporters?

The Act shields whistleblowers from retaliation and ensures anonymity until verdicts are reached.

Can Ghana prosecute foreign officials for corruption?

Yes, under the 2003 United Nations Convention against Corruption, ratified by Ghana.

What’s the penalty for bypassing legal protocols in ORAL investigations?

Unlawful investigations can lead to criminal charges for obstruction of justice under Section 29 of the Criminal Offences Act.