Political Science Lecturer at the University of Ghana, Prof Ransford Gyampo, says President Akufo-Addo should be honest about his stance on fighting corruption.

According to Gyampo, the President should communicate directly with Ghanaians before forming opinions about his record of the fight against corruption.

Prof Gyampo's comment comes after President Akufo-Addo touted his record in the fight against corruption, claiming that combating corruption has been the cornerstone of his administration.

According to the President who was speaking during the commissioning of The Law House on June 10, corruption thrives in environments where it can be concealed, and that access to information is crucial in fighting it.

He noted that to address this, his government ensured the passage of the Right to Information Act (RTI) 2019, ACT 989, during its first term.

But speaking on JoyNews’ AM Show on June 11, Prof Gyampo questioned the effectiveness of increasing funding for anti-corruption agencies if other actions undermine the fight against corruption.

“Don’t tell me that you are giving more funding to anti-corruption agencies. To do what? We are told that CHRAJ, for instance, has had its funding increased under this particular administration and it’s a good thing. But you do not increase their funding while doing things that would make the fight against corruption very difficult.”

Prof Gyampo stated that there can be no comparison between President Akufo-Addo and the former President John Mahama, arguing that there are significant differences between the two administrations, suggesting that corruption scandals in Akufo-Addo's government should lead to prosecutions, similar to the case of Abuga Pele during Mahama's tenure.

“It is a clear case of day and night. You are telling me that there is no corruption scandal in this particular regime that should necessitate the prosecution and the jailing of anyone. Abuga Pele was jailed by his own government, and you think that we can’t find some in this regime?”

“We cannot follow due process in perpetuity. We cannot follow due processes if you give clearance of people who are expected to go through due process.”