Private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu has raised concerns and expressed disbelief regarding the characterisation of Adu Boahen’s influence peddling case as not constituting corruption.
According to him, the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) must take a look at the case again because the allegation against Adu Boahen, in a broader sense, constitutes corruption, considering its common definition.
This comes as a reaction after the OSP cleared the former minister of state at the Ministry of Finance, Charles Adu Boahen, of the allegation of Influence Peddling, a term used by a person of power or influence on someone else’s behalf in return for money or favours.
Martin Kpebu, speaking on TV3, noted that the definition of corruption, particularly the use of public office for private gains, should encompass the actions of Adu Boahen, who reportedly received $40,000 in the case under which he was investigated and cleared.
He stressed that this substantial sum, when considered alongside Adu Boahen’s role as a political appointee, raises significant concerns about corruption.
“When you look at the common definition of corruption being using public office for private gains, you would see that from the findings made by the OSP, Charles Adu Boahen took $40,000. If you multiply that, you get the minimum of GH¢500, 000. What for, to be able to help facilitate the meetings, etc., if that is not corruption, I don’t know what will qualify as corruption. So, that particular part is influence peddling, and so it is not corruption. I am struggling to understand it.
“It is influence peddling, but that does not mean it is the only characterisation to be given to it. Let’s use the ordinary meaning of corruption, which is that a public servant uses his office for private gain. Adu Boahen was not given the money because he was Adu Boahen, but because of where he is placed as a political appointee and he is paid from the consolidated fund, he being a public officer is not in doubt,” he said.
Also, the legal practitioner highlighted the subtle distinction between influence peddling and the broader scope of corruption.
He emphasised that while the OSP has closed the case on the allegation of influence peddling, it doesn’t prevent the possibility of further legal action in the future if new evidence emerges.
“In the first place, the OSP report itself makes it clear that they are not closing the docket, so, in the future, it can be reopened, or if further evidence is discovered, they can be considered the same, and then they could be charged. So, it’s not been closed; it was explicitly stated in the report that that is not the end of the matter, but they are just closing it for now.
“I am thinking that, from the way the OSP has done the report, it should be going to the Attorney General for him to also look at it, but perhaps the OSP should look again. I’m struggling to understand how this isn’t corruption,” he added.
Source: ghanaweb.com
