Former New Patriotic Party (NPP) lawmaker Alexander Abban has questioned the reported profit-making position of the Ghana Education Trust Fund (GETFund), arguing that the institution was established to channel education-related taxes and levies into improving the country’s education system, not to operate as a conventional profit-making company.

Abban said claims that GETFund had made profits raised questions about how the institution was measuring its performance and whether it was fulfilling its original mandate.

“One of the institutions is GETFund. Was GETFund established to make profits?” Abban asked.

“So, if a company like that come to say they have made profits, it means they were jokers. Because GETFund, you are there to receive our taxes and levies that are brought to you, to use and improve our educational system.”

Speaking on The Forum on Asaase Radio on Saturday, 5 September, Abban said the fund was created following demands from student leaders, including himself, for a dedicated mechanism to support education.

He questioned the basis on which GETFund could declare profits when its principal role was to receive statutory revenues and spend them on educational development.

“Because I was a student leader when we pressed for GETFund to be established,” he said.

“And so if you are to receive such monies and you come and declare profit, then what items did you sell to come and declare profit? They are jokers, and they must be sacked. They should give us a break.”

Abban’s comments come amid renewed debate over the financial performance and governance of state-owned institutions following the release of the State Interests and Governance Authority (SIGA) report.

He cautioned, however, that a positive cash position on an institution’s books should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of strong performance.

“The mere fact that your books show a positive cash position does not necessarily mean that you’ve acted to your optimum,” he said.

Abban also linked the wider debate over state institutions to concerns about political influence in the appointment of boards and chief executives.

He argued that where the state holds a majority stake in a company, the president should constitute the board, while the board should appoint the chief executive in accordance with corporate governance principles.

He said the practice of presidents directly appointing chief executives could make boards vulnerable to political influence.

Abban called for SIGA to help insulate state-owned enterprises from political manipulation by ensuring that appointments are based on professional competence and the needs of individual institutions.

“Unless, of course, with the coming in of SIGA we are going to insulate it from political manipulations in such a way that we would be able to look for men and women who have the competences in their various fields that would be required by the various companies,” he said.

He argued that political patronage remained a challenge to effective governance, saying board members appointed through political connections could struggle to maintain independence when governments change.

Abban said the debate over the performance of state institutions should therefore go beyond financial figures to examine whether they are fulfilling their statutory mandates effectively.