Member of Parliament for Tamale North, Alhassan Suhuyini has explained that his decision to vote against Deputy Education Minister-designate, Gifty Twum-Ampofo was borne out of the need to address the threat of corruption to Ghana’s democracy.

According to him, it was not as a result of a personal vendetta but, “the need for us at all times to be alive to the threat of corruption to our democracy, and for us to begin to take steps to address the issues of corruption.”

His comments follow the Appointments Committee of Parliament’s decision to suspend the approval of three nominees; Amidu Issahaku Chinnia, Diana Asonaba Dapaah and Gifty Twum-Ampofo, who were heading to the Sanitation and Water Resources Ministry, the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General’s Department, and the Education Ministry respectively.

Alhassan Suhuyini had, prior to the vetting of Gifty Twum-Ampofo, made clear his decision to vote against her. He alleged that the nominee was involved in vote buying in the New Patriotic Party’s parliamentary primaries.

Gifty Twum-Ampofo subsequently, admitted to bribing delegates during the parliamentary primaries when she appeared before the Appointments Committee.

According to Suhuyini, the issue of vote buying and the monetization of politics in the country has in recent times, become a subject of discussion, as stakeholders highlight it’s harmful effect on Ghana’s democratic experiment.

He said, suspending the approval of Gifty Twum-Ampofo is in the right direction to address the canker.

He explained that despite admitting to the allegation, her attitude has been nonchalant since then and that was unbecoming of a deputy ministerial nominee.

“I mean many people are concerned about the growing monetization of our politics especially when parties engage in their primaries. And we have all been discussing this. I think it was what led to the Corruption Watch powered by the CDD to carry out the survey that they carried out.

“So one would have expected the nominee who admitted to bribing these delegates, to even if for nothing, be remorseful about it and to perhaps give indications as to why she had to do what she did and proffer ways of, moving forward, how that can stop.

“Because I don’t think anybody who has been engaged in what has been termed monetization of our politics during parliamentary primaries is really proud of it. Because I am not. I have really never engaged in it, but I’m not proud of it,” he said.

“But we’re all caught in it. And it is important to not allow it to numb our conscience to what is right and what is good. And that for me didn’t come across very well from the nominee and that was very disappointing,” he added.