Anti-corruption campaigner and chairperson of the African Union Advisory Board against Corruption, Edem Senanu, has defended President John Dramani Mahama’s decision to recuse himself from cabinet deliberations over the Damang Mine issue.

In an interview on Joy FM's Middaynews on Thursday, May 14, Mr. Senanu said the President’s action demonstrated adherence to constitutional requirements on conflict of interest involving public officers.

“I think it was the right action. So far, I have not been convinced that there has been any actual conflict of interest,” he said.

Senanu made the remarks in response to a question following reports that President Mahama had recused himself from Cabinet deliberations on the Damang Mine matter involving his brother's company. He was specifically asked whether the President’s decision to step aside pointed to a possible conflict of interest in the process that led to the award involving Engineers & Planners.

Senanu explained that the public often confuses the different forms of conflict of interest, noting that there are important distinctions between perceived, potential, and actual conflict.

According to him, a perceived conflict may simply be based on speculation, while potential conflict arises when a public official’s involvement in a process could eventually create a real conflict.

“Potential conflict of interest means you are aware that something within the processes, if you are involved in it, could lead to actual conflict of interest, and that’s where the Constitution requires our public officers to avoid even potential conflict of interest,” he explained.

He said the President’s decision to step away from the cabinet discussions was consistent with that constitutional obligation.

“That is the action that the President appears to have taken, and it is in good stead. I think that the President took the right action if it came before the Cabinet,” he said.

He further noted that the evidence currently available does not show that the company linked to the issue, Engineers and Planners Company Limited, was unqualified to secure the contract.

“But primarily, so far, the evidence provided does not suggest that the bidder did not deserve to win that award, that particular contract,” he added.