..."scholarships," properly speaking, are designed to fund people who will contribute to knowledge, society, or academia and is generally targeted at high-quality students, researchers, practitioners, and faculty.

That is the first criteria.

For national governments, there are two other factors it must consider: need, and strategic human capital development focus.

A country can use scholarships to fund citizens to undertake undergraduate and postgraduate programmes locally and abroad in specific areas it wants to develop competencies in, for example, precision engineering or biopharmaceuticals. This is usually tied in with some development goals in the future, or even to bridge gaps in the labour market. As we speak, the US is virtually running out of welders. It might choose to direct Federal-funded scholarships in that direction.

Admittedly, some of the courses and related activities for which the GETFund provided support does not indicate such a strategic focus, or if it does, is not immediately obvious to the unpractised eye such as mine.

The key point is this, however: awarding scholarships in this manner may, but not solely, be based on demonstrated competencies or passion for these subjects, not primarily on whether your family is rich or not.

This is addressed by the second, other factors: targeting disadvantaged groups/persons who otherwise may not acquire (higher) education by reason of lack of funding (our stereotypical 'brilliant but needy' beneficiaries) or minorities facing discrimination (elsewhere, for example, targeting black communities etc).

So the idea that scholarships are only meant for the "poor" is not wholly correct.

However, we must also admit that a less than transparent administration of a scholarship scheme creates avenues for cronyism AND suspicion of cronyism.

We also have to condemn, where it is due, "well-connected" people WHO USE THEIR CONNECTIONS to obtain scholarships for themselves and close family members, whether qualified or not. This unfairly discriminates against others who may have had a level competitive field on which to play for an opportunity to receive funding for their studies.

We also need some perspective here.

The Auditor-General reviewed over 2,000 recipients of scholarships, out of which it chose to extract and publish names of 88 persons it considers to be "Members of Parliament, Politicians [not sure what this means], Media Practitioners, Lecturers, Heads of Institutions and [their] Associates."

Roughly, they constitute 4.4% of all recipients. Even less if you consider that the actual number of recipients is 3,000+. I am at a loss as to the reasoning behind the extraction but even if we assume that all of these people cheated to acquire their scholarships, we must make allowances for the fact that many would still be qualified recipients. We cannot assume they all cheated without "proof." That will be dangerous.

This also leads me to the case of Hajia Ramana Shareef: she avers that even though her name has been listed by the Auditor General as the recipient of thousands of pounds, she never saw a penny of it. She now is potentially suffering double jeopardy as a result of the Auditor-General's "lack of restraint."

Let me explain: first, she's now been named as a member of the group of [potential] cheats. Friends, colleagues, relations, and enemies would now look at her through "political" lenses, when, for all we know, she's not.

(Another victim of this lack of restraint is Hon Kennedy Nyarko Osei. His name was listed even though there was no indication that he has received a penny of scholarship funds: the Auditor General's report indicated no amount and the MP also denies receiving same.)

Secondly, IF (because though I believe her I have no proof as at now) indeed she did not receive the funding, it means the Auditor-General failed to do a thorough job. If it had, it would have been able to detect that someone other than Hajia had received the money in her name (I am also assuming, given Hajia's public denials, that the Auditor-General failed to contact recipients, nor their schools to confirm that monies are being properly expended.) Indeed, it is also possible that no money was paid out at all.

This, and many other less than rigorous parts of the report (for example omitting to include dates for beneficiaries' receiving funding), gives me cause for deep concern.

Having said all that, it is heartwarming to note that the current GETFund administrator is implementing measures that have addressed, in large measure, the inefficiencies of the past administrator under whom some of these infractions took place.

I hope we have all learnt some lessons from this, from the Auditor General through Journalists to Politically-Exposed-Persons.

Shalom.