Anti-corruption campaigner Edem Senanu has described the reported GH¢70,000 payment involving Parliament’s Appointments Committee as a serious ethical concern, saying that a memorandum at the centre of the controversy provides an unusual level of detail about how the money was allegedly distributed.

His comments follow reports that the Deputy Minority Leader Patricia Appiagyei rejected GH¢70,000 allegedly sent to her by the Majority Chief Whip.

In a memorandum dated September 2, she reportedly directed that the money be returned, citing concerns about its source and her unwillingness to personally benefit from a parliamentary process involving the vetting of Majority Leader Mahama Ayariga, Deputy Majority Leader Zanetor Agyeman-Rawlings and three Supreme Court nominees.

• Read also: Deputy Minority Leader claims she rejected GH¢70k gift allegedly linked to vetting of Ayariga, Zanetor and SC judges

However, Mr Senanu said the significance of the development goes beyond the reported rejection of the money.

Speaking on The Pulse on JoyNews on Friday, September 4, on whether MPs who received GH¢70,000 but claimed not to know its source should have reported or declared the money, he said the ethical obligations attached to parliamentary office should have prompted such caution.

According to him, lawmakers should be particularly careful when dealing with people who appear before them for assessment or vetting.

“You have a set of people who are coming for an interview, irrespective of whether they chose to give or not. From a very ethical perspective, the right thing is that you should not be receiving money from them because it will seem to suggest that you chose to overlook certain things or you did them a favour,” he said.

He said the Constitution also requires public officials to avoid situations that could amount to a conflict of interest, including a potential conflict.

“So you do not get yourself into a position. And even the Constitution says that you shouldn't put yourself in a position of even potential conflict of interest,” he said.

For Mr Senanu, the amount involved was significant enough to make it difficult to characterise the payment as an ordinary gift.

“And definitely, if you're talking about the person brought a carton of something that you might not get bothered about that, GH¢70,000, that is just one too much for anybody to begin to say that this is an ordinary gift. That is not an ordinary gift.”

He said the memo was important because it appeared to shed light on the structure through which the money was allegedly received and distributed.

“First of all, we have never had the level of detail in terms of how it is structured before,” Mr Senanu said.

“What this memo does is to give you clarity on the various levels. So say the chief allocated, it is an advance towards my portion, brought to me by the deputy, and my chief has also said he's returning his.”

According to him, previous allegations involving payments in Parliament often left questions about who received the money and how it was distributed.

“The detail is something we've not had in the past,” he said, adding that, "So you would have had somebody to bribe. You're not sure who picked it, how is it distributed.”

However, the anti-corruption campaigner said the latest memo appeared to provide a different level of detail.

“This one memo begins to tell you there's a hierarchy. Somebody receives, gives to the next level, they then distribute, there's an allocation. And then you have a figure,” he said.

Mr Senanu said the alleged GH¢70,000 allocation was particularly significant, even as questions remain over the authenticity of the document and the circumstances surrounding the money.

“I think that we've not had in the past. 70,000 to one person. Irrespective of whether they call it fake or not,” he said.

“We understand how these things tend to go on. It tells us that there is a big problem we need to address and to address quickly.”

The controversy has already triggered competing accounts, with the Second Deputy Minority Whip, Jerry Ahmed Shaib, dismissing the allegations as untrue and describing the purported memorandum as fake.

He has also said Mrs Appiagyei had not received any money from anyone.

Commenting on this, Mr Senanu said that the allegations warrant closer scrutiny rather than being dismissed without investigation.

“I’m hoping that somehow we will find the strength of will to confront it and to deal with it,” he said.

The anti-corruption campaigner also questioned the practice of lawmakers receiving money from individuals whose appointments or interests they are expected to scrutinise.

He said that parliamentary committees already operate with budgets and should not require people appearing before them to provide additional funds.

“It does not include asking persons who are coming to Parliament, seeking the services of Parliament to pass laws for them to now start having to gather money.”

Mr Senanu said the concern becomes more serious where payments are connected to appointments, because accepting money from individuals whose nominations are being considered could create a conflict of interest.

“And especially not when it comes to the issue of appointments, because obviously what that does is there's a conflict of interest,” he said.

“You cannot be neutral and provide an objective analysis or screening of the individual if that same individual is by the back door giving you money that you accept.”

He described such a situation as unethical and said public officials should avoid circumstances that could compromise, or appear to compromise, their impartiality.

“That clearly is unethical. It's totally not acceptable. And we are not supposed to be getting ourselves into this kind of thing. So it's a very big issue. And yes, the optics are not good at all,” he added.

Read also: No truth in GH¢70k ‘gift’ claims involving Appiagyei, the memo is fake – Deputy Minority Whip