One million dollars and more: Does Cecelia Dapaah deserve a right to be heard?

Over the past few days, there has been public outcry over the source of money allegedly to have been stolen from the home of Cecilia Dapaah, the Minister of Sanitation and Water Resources.

This matter came to light when the facts of the case were read out in court. Consequently, attention has been shifted from the accused persons who are alleged to have stolen the Minister's money and other properties to the Minister (the complainant) whose property has been stolen.

This is not surprising due to the quantum of monies involved, and the status and conduct of the Minister as a public official. It is alleged that the monies were stolen from the Minister's residence, and many have wondered why the Minister will keep such a huge amount of money at her residence instead of a bank.

The loudest argument has been that the money in question is stolen funds or not derived from a genuine source, and that is why the Minister could not keep it
in a bank. Obviously, a bank will question the source of the funds because the Minister is a politically exposed person. In support of the position, the argument is that the Minister is a public official and that it is not likely that she will have such a huge amount of savings.

The public outcry eventually led to her resignation. Following that, the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) moved in to arrest her and conducted a search of her home. The question I ask myself is whether Cecilia Dapaah shouldn’t have reported the theft to the police and the eventual prosecution of the alleged culprits and let sleeping dogs lie.

The amount involved

The gravamen of the issue is the amount involved and how much is left ‘unstolen’. Could the amount claimed to have been stolen be more than what has been detected? Could there be more money in the house which remains undisclosed? Furthermore, if perhaps, the one million and more were kept in the house as imprest, how much are we talking about in the bank and by way of other investments?

If the Minister's salary is even Twenty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHS 20,000) a month, it will take the Minister about Forty-Eight (48) years to make one million dollars at an exchange rate of GHS 11.5 to a dollar. These are genuine questions that every concerned Ghanaian will ask. However, is the Minister's income from public service her only source of Income?

Stolen money or genuine money?

Maybe, the Minister's income from public service may not be her only source of income.

However, the immediate conclusion drawn in the minds of many Ghanaians is that the money is stolen money or not derived from a genuine source. Those who are thinking this way must not be faulted considering the lavish lifestyles of public officers and the myriad of corruption-related scandals.

That notwithstanding, a better conclusion to determine whether Cecilia Dapaah’s
money is stolen money or not can be made after a thorough investigative finding. I intend to examine the institutions that can assist in arriving at this better conclusion.

The police/b>

The Minister reported the incident to the police who may have conducted an investigation into the veracity of the Minister's complaint. It appears on the charge sheet that some of the money/properties stolen belonged to Cecilia Dapaah's husband. But the charge sheet clearly identifies who and what was stolen from the couples. Perhaps, the police were convinced that the crime had been committed but did not verify the source of the funds.

They may also have believed that the Minister had such an amount which had been stolen by the alleged culprits. It may be on this basis that the police processed the matter for the court to determine. Not to go into the issues in court, whether the minister had that amount of money including the source of the money will be subjected to evidentiary scrutiny.

The office of the Special Prosecutor

I will commend the OSP for their swift intervention. If all the responsible state institutions were doing their part this matter would have come to its logical conclusion by now. As per its mandate, the OSP has the power to investigate and prosecute allegations of corruption, corruption-related offences, and suspected corruption involving public officers, politically exposed persons as well as persons in the private sector involved in the commission of the offence.

Therefore, Cecilia Dapaah has the opportunity to prove that the source of her is genuine and not related to any instance of corruption. Did she comply with the asset declaration regime?

The Ghana Revenue Authority

The Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) has the power to summon the Minister to declare the source of the money whether earned (either through business, investment, or employment), inherited, or gifted. All these income sources can be easily traceable. For example, if the money was earned, there must be proof by way of pay slips, investment certificates or profits from any other business she may own, if any.

These income sources would also have attracted taxes so they can be easily verifiable by the GRA. If the income sources were verifiable and the appropriate taxes due to the state were not paid, that would be a different matter which
will warrant a different treatment. On the other hand, if the source of funds is through an inheritance, there would be proof by way of a will, and the grant of probate or letters of administration.

In case the inherited money was kept in a bank, it would be easily traceable as
to when it was withdrawn. If it wasn't kept in a bank, then a further trace can be made to the testator's source of funds. If the money was gifted, the giftor should be identifiable and the source of the giftor's funds will also be traced. Similarly, if it was received through donations, the donor must be available to establish proof.

The Minister’s conduct

The conduct of the Minister as to the amount of money kept at home leaves much to be desired. Public Officers must ensure that their actions are worth emulating and must not conduct themselves in a manner that will raise public suspicion. Even if it is determined that the source of the money was genuine, it was unreasonable (though not unlawful) for such an amount of money to be kept at home.

Such conduct feeds into the public perception about the corrupt nature of
public officials which leads to the lack of public trust in the ability of public officials to act in the best interest of the country.

The Minister's conduct has triggered some form of indirect connection to the source of money alleged to have been stolen and the award of a 43 million
dollar contract to desilt the Odaw River. Reference is made to the adage that says, "Wood already touched by fire is not hard to set alight".

Conclusion

The court of public opinion may have crucified Cecilia Dapaah even before she is giving the opportunity to be heard. This has resulted in her losing her job as well the integrity issues that she may have suffered out of her right to protect her property. However, her actions and inactions have contributed to her woes. Even though the court of public opinion may have prejudged her, there is a saving grace.

She still has the opportunity to be heard in a court of law and must avail
herself of full and truthful disclosures.