The Member of Parliament for Akwatia, Bernard Bediako Baidoo, has defended President John Mahama’s decision to dissolve some government-appointed boards, insisting the move should not be linked to allegations of indiscipline among appointees.

According to him, "the President, having appointed the affected officials, has the mandate to remove them as part of his efforts to execute his administration’s agenda".

He argued that there was therefore no need to treat the dissolution of the boards as an unusual development or necessarily as evidence of wrongdoing.

His comments come amid discussions over the government’s decision to dissolve and reconstitute some boards, with questions being raised about the reasons behind the changes.

Mr Baidoo, however, cautioned against drawing a direct link between the President’s recent emphasis on discipline among government appointees and the dissolution of the boards.

He noted that although President Mahama has repeatedly urged his appointees to remain disciplined and focused on serving the public, that caution should not automatically be interpreted as an explanation for the changes in board membership.

“I’m saying that it is also wrong at this point, or misleading, to link this caution to the dissolution…” he said.

The Akwatia MP acknowledged that concerns about governance and the conduct of some appointees could warrant attention, suggesting that there may be a need for “some cleaning” within certain state institutions.

However, he stressed that the President had not publicly stated that the board changes were a direct consequence of indiscipline.

Mr Baidoo also pointed to comments attributed to the President urging appointees to serve with discipline and commitment, saying such reminders were appropriate but should not be conflated with the reasons for the board shake-up.

The MP maintained that the President must be allowed to make decisions he considers necessary to achieve his administration’s objectives.

He further urged caution in interpreting political claims surrounding the changes, arguing that assertions made publicly must be properly substantiated rather than presented as established facts.