INTRODUCTION
ORAL, Operation Recover All Loot, as it has come to be known, was a major campaign
promise by the newly elected National Democratic Congress government. Throughout the
campaigning session, the mention of ORAL drew the largest applauds, as it appeared to have
placated the sentiments of revenge seeking political fanatics of the then opposition National
democratic congress. Even before the newly elected government was sworn in, an ORAL
committee, comprising some known partisan activists, was announced by the incoming
government, further hyping the expectation of the people who voted for the newly elected
government. Some commentators have said that the success or otherwise of this
government will be dependent on the fate of the ORAL and that even if Mahama achieved
nothing, the ORAL must not fail. This optimism notwithstanding, it is important to note that
in its current state and composition, the ORAL scheme faces four strong reputational
challenges, which this article seeks to explore. These reputational issues appear to confirm
suggestions that ORAL is but a mere political propaganda tool which was leveraged for
political power.
- Modus Operandi of ORAL
The mode of operationalizing the ORAL has been of concern to many social commentators.
Prior to the elections, the impression had been created as though the ORAL will be a para
militia group that visits supposed looters with the view to retrieving state assets. This
approach informed the combative posturing of persons, including Malik Basintale, a
vociferous voice of the campaign. Wearing a cadet uniform, he was introduced to the
cheering crowd as a leader of the ORAL. Obviously, his vehement posturing had endeared
him to the young support base of the party, a feat the president had acknowledge in one of
the party’s numerous manifesto launches. However, when the ORAL team was announced
Malik Basintale was conspicuously missing from the list. For many watchers, this signaled a
departure from the rather militia style of approaching ORAL, which has been advertised to
the party. Again, the committee announced a website where they will receive perceived
complaints/allegations of corruption by unknown and anonymous persons. We will also
later find out from the Chair of the Committee that the ORAL committee was just a
preparatory and information gathering team for the Attorney -General and that their work
ends once an Attorney-General is appointed. This view was confirmed by the President’s
legal advisor, Marietta Brew Oppong-Appiah and the Special Aide to the President, Joyce
Bawa. The seeming mismatch between what was promised and how ORAL had turned out
has drawn massive condemnation from both ends of the political divide, a situation many
consider as a major reputational challenge for ORAL. - Constitutionality/Legality of ORAL
Even first year law students have had cause to question the constitutionality of the ORAL.
Aside from the fact that Ghana already has antigraft institutions, including the EOCO,
CHRAJ, Special Prosecutor, many considered the ORAL unconstitutional, as it lacked any
legislative or constitutional basis to haunt supposed/perceived looters and prosecute them
as had been advertised. While the Attorney-General could shed some of its prosecutorial
powers to institutions like the police services and other antigraft agency with the view to
investigating and prosecuting corruption related matters, the ORAL, in its current state, has
no constitutional backing to enjoy such delegatory privileges from the Attorney-General. The
haste with which the ORAL committee was constituted and hyped, even when it lacks any
prosecutorial powers, further adds to the low reputational points for it. - Alleged Looting by Supporters of the New government
Following an early electoral concession by the candidate of the New Patriotic Party, Ghana
was thrown into a frenzy with reported cases of looting across the length and breadth of the
country by persons allegedly supporters of the NDC. These people took advantage of the
change in power to attack workers of some state institutions and to loot some state assets.
There have been reported cases of looting at the Tamale Buffer Stock Warehouse, School
Feeding Project Warehouse in Tamale, with people stealing foodstuffs and other items,
among a host of others. Currently the Ghana Police Service is investigating 89 suspects
arrested in connection with various offences. 40 of these suspects are directly connected to
the acts of vandalism, looting and destruction of properties. These misguided actions by
alleged supporters of a party which had won on the back of haunting state looters have
brought into question the reputation of the ORAL. Questions have been asked whether the
ORAL Committee will be interested in pursuing these people, as well. Others have
questioned the moral rights of these people, when they appear, by their actions, not to be
against looting of state assets. - Posturing of some Members of the ORAL Committee
Honestly the posturing of some members of the ORAL committee has truly proven
counterproductive to the course of the committee. Aside from the fact that the Committee’s
Chair, Mr. Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, who in the lead up to the elections gained notoriety
for intercepting documents on the corruption cases, is politically exposed, some of his
utterances, which turned out to be untrue has rubbed off negatively on the reputation of the
ORAL. A case in point is how CHRAJ had dismissed his corruption claims against Rev. Kusi
Boateng, in the famous National cathedral issue. It turned out that some of his views on the
matter were exaggerated and couldn’t stand the strictest legal test. Another person, whose
public posturing and utterances have brought the reputation of the ORAL into question is
Lawyer Martin Kpebu, an avowed critics of the erstwhile Nana Akuffo Addo led
administration. On TV3’s Point of View Program last Saturday, which was widely reported, he
had claimed that the former BNI boss had approached ORAL to willingly return a state land
that he had illegally acquired, as a way of mitigating against possible prosecution by ORAL.
This statement, which was made ostensibly to draw public applause of the gains made by
ORAL, turned out to be false. Hours after this publication, the former BNI boss, through his
lawyers, categorically denied approaching ORAL for such purpose, demanding a retraction
or apology, failing which he would exercise all legal rights available to him. This development
has further compounded the reputational issues that ORAL have had to deal with, as
members of the committee angle for public attention and good will for a scheme, which has
hardly any public interest beyond serving as a partisan propaganda tool. One wonders why
a three-week-old investigative body would be in such haste for public applauds and approval
to a point where members of the committee will put their reputations on the line to peddle
bareface lies about individuals and institutions which they have targeted.
CONCLUSION
With time, it is becoming obvious that the lack of constitutional backing/basis of the ORAL
is the least among the issues the scheme will contend with. Aside from managing the huge
expectations of individuals who voted for the scheme, a greater part of ORAL’s role will be to
build a reputation that dispels possible linkage to partisan politics and propaganda. Truly,
we would not have been here if members of the committee had stayed neutral and
independent of any partisan influence and posturing. However, as the committee wraps up
its work, the ability of the ORAL team to balance the expectations of revenge seeking party
fanatics with the broader interest of the public will be the real test of its viability, credibility
and sustainability.
Samuel Arthur
Communications and Media Consultant.