You are here: HomeNews2017 04 02Article 524811

General News of Sunday, 2 April 2017


Bribery allegation committee went on a wild goose chase – Kweku Baako

Editor in Chief of the New Crusading Guide, Mr Abdul Malik Kwaku Baako has stated that the ad-hoc committee set up by parliament to investigate the bribery allegation went on a wild goose chase.

Although the ad-hoc committee found the Bawku Central Member of Parliament, Mr Mahama Ayariga guilty of contempt of parliament and recommended that he should be sanctioned in accordance with Section 35 of the Parliament Act, 1965 (Act 300), Mr Baako believed that the allegation still has the potential to hurt the integrity of parliament.

Punching holes in the claims by Mr Ayariga that members of the Appointments Committee of Parliament received monies which was meant to induce their approval of Mr Boakye Agyarko as Energy Minister, Mr Baako said Agyarko was over qualified and does not understand why he will go to such extreme to bribe members of the committee.

According to the Veteran journalist, there was no incentive or motive to bribe members of the ACP with GH¢3,000 each.

"In this case we all know the man over deserved it. Over qualified and indeed if it was not his articulation and submission at the committee level, even in numbers his side will vote for him anyway. So the motive, the incentive for Boakye Agyarko to have gone to that extreme is non-existent", Mr Baako said.

Contributing to discussions on Joy FM’s Newsfile programme on Saturday,Mr Baako wondered why a member of parliament will receive GH¢3,000 and claim he doesn’t know it was meant to influence their decision on a ministerial nominee.

Although Mr Ayariga had alleged that members of the minority side of the committee had assumed it was an allowance, Mr Baako rejected that assertion saying that " Why would he give you the money without telling you the purpose because you are supposed to execute an agenda....the bribe giver or the transmission belt or whoever will let you know.

“....the man must make you aware why you are collecting the money and the purpose and in this case it is a criminal mission. He must let you know he is influencing you negatively. In this case it is so clear.”

He added that “if he gave you the money and told you it was an allowance. What was the purpose he was going to achieve? Could he achieve the purpose of influencing you to approve a nominee by consensus then that purpose is not there?

“If you were not told that this was meant to influence you to do something criminal and you took it as allowance; you would have accepted it as allowance. So you still would have stuck to your position that this man (nominee) must not be approved, ” Mr Baako added.