EDITORIAL: The $25,000 'Gift' And Unanswered Questions

Yet another controversy has rocked Ghana sports, which has in recent times been experiencing vicissitudes of fortune.

The news which broke this week that players and officials in the contingent to Nigeria when the national team, the Black Stars, played their Nigerian counterparts, the Super Eagles, in Port Harcourt on July 28, this year, received an amount of ?25,000 from the Governor of Rivers State of Nigeria, has sparked off a heated debate.

While a section of the society, including the members of the contingent and their local allies and sympathizers, see the Port Harcourt presentation as a normal gift given after such games, another section of the populace is of the view that the offer amounts to bribery.

The Chronicle is of the view that there is a thin line between a gift and a bribe. In either case, a pleasant representation is made: it is the context within which the offer is made that makes it a gift or a bribe.

The entire football loving section of the nation will recall that in the few days preceding that encounter between Ghana and Nigeria there had been rumours, fuelled by the utterances of George Oppon Weah of Liberia, that an impending encounter between Ghana and Nigeria was going to be less than competitive, since even a victory for the Black Stars could not have secured Ghana a place in the World Cup tournament.

The players and officials and journalists in the Ghanaian contingent to Nigeria cannot claim they were ignorant of this state of affairs.

It is against this background that the Chronicle supports the view that the 'gift' presented by the Rivers State Governor should have been rejected by Ghanaian contingent.

As we have stated earlier, whether a presentation is perceived to be a gift or a bride depends on the circumstances surrounding its offer.

It is clear that the Ghanaian officials saw nothing wrong with the offer.

The problem is that in the final analysis it is not what they think that matters, but what the society at large thinks.

Journalists who have had a brush with the courts in libel suits will admit that what guides the Judges in deciding whether a statement is libellous or not is not what the author intended it to be, but what the ordinary reasonable man will interpret it to be.

The leadership of the Ghanaian contingent should therefore have exercised maximum prudence and explained to the Rivers State Governor that much as they appreciated his brotherly gesture, the circumstances surrounding that particular contest made their acceptance of his 'gift' rather dangerous.

One other aspect of the controversy, which reinforces people's belief that the Ghanaians had been bribed is their silence since returning from Port Harcourt more than three months ago.

If the $25,000 was given as a demonstration of the cordial relationship between Ghana and Nigeria as some people would want us to believe, then Ghanaians should have been informed to enable us react appropriately to our Nigerian compatriots.

That the entire contingent, including eight journalists, saw it fit to keep the whole nation in the dark gives cause for suspicion.

Are people not justified if they suggest that the silence was the result of a guilty conscience.

The lack of transparency surrounding the offer and acceptance of the $25,000 in Port Harcourt is highly suspicious.

The key actors in that act have left several questions unanswered.