Buzz Editor’s Opinion
President Nana Addo Dankwa Akuffo-Addo’s appointment of Nana Bediatuo Asante, his former Executive Secretary, as Ambassador-at-large just six months before the upcoming election has sparked significant questions and criticisms. This move has ignited public debate regarding its rationale and potential advantages. Critics contend that such an appointment seems to prioritize political patronage over national interest.
The role of an Ambassador-at-Large is often vague, and in this instance, the timing and necessity of Bediatuo’s appointment raise significant questions. With only six months remaining before the election, the potential impact Bediatuo can realistically achieve in such a short period is questionable. Moreover, his position comes with the same privileges and responsibilities as substantive ambassadors who represent Ghana abroad. Given the country’s strained economic resources, there is widespread concern about whether this appointment represents a prudent use of state funds.
Adding to these concerns are doubts raised by the track record of previous appointees. For example, questions linger about Dr. Edward Mahama, appointed as an ambassador plenipotentiary for the PNC in 2017. Many are unsure whether he is still in his post and what concrete contributions he has made since his appointment. These uncertainties underscore broader skepticism regarding the effectiveness and accountability of such diplomatic roles.
In addition to Bediatuo’s appointment, several other ambassadors have been appointed, including Vice Admiral Seth Amoama to Nigeria, Mrs. Francisca Ashietey-Oduntun to South Africa, Mr. Ernest Yaw Amporful to Rwanda, and others to strategic positions in Turkey, Belgium, Morocco, Norway, Ethiopia, and the African Union. These appointees, comprising three High Commissioners, five Ambassadors, and one Ambassador-at-Large, are entrusted with representing Ghana in various countries and international organizations. However, the strategic rationale behind these appointments remains unclear.
President Akuffo-Addo outlined the responsibilities of these envoys, emphasizing their role in collaborating with host governments on common agendas such as combating armed conflicts, terrorism, violent extremism, climate change threats, and curbing illicit financial flows from Africa. Yet, questions arise about the feasibility of achieving these goals within the next six months, given that the current government’s term will end. Moreover, concerns persist regarding the economic costs associated with maintaining these diplomatic missions during a period of fiscal constraint for the country.
Professor Baffour Agyeman-Duah, a former senior governance advisor at the UN and co-founder of the Ghana Center for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), has critiqued these recent ambassadorial appointments, suggesting they prioritize fulfilling the ambassadorial aspirations of party loyalists rather than addressing Ghana’s genuine diplomatic needs. This perspective resonates with many who view these decisions as irresponsible and self-serving, especially given the country’s economic challenges. Critics argue that the government seems indifferent to the significant economic impact of its actions, focusing instead on satisfying narrow political interests at the expense of national well-being.
As Ghana approaches the upcoming election, the timing and nature of these appointments underscore a critical need for increased transparency and accountability in governmental decisions. It is crucial that the government prioritizes national interests over political expediency to ensure that the country’s resources are utilized effectively and responsibly.
