Former First Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Joseph Osei-Owusu, has admitted that members of the Appointments Committee receive money from the Chief of Staff after vetting nominees.
However, the former Bekwai MP insists that it is not bribery.
Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express, the former Chair of the Committee defended the practice, stating that it was meant to facilitate their work and had nothing to do with influencing decisions.
“Yes, indeed. I told him (Manasseh Azure) that when I joined the Appointments Committee, most of the time, at the close of our work, the Chief of Staff would bring money to the members of the committee. It’s like facilitating our work,” he admitted. “I wonder how anybody could link that to bribery?” he told host Blessed Sogah.
Mr Osei-Owusu expressed frustration over what he described as the ease with which allegations are thrown around in Ghana without evidence.
“The easiest thing in our country is throwing about allegations. Often, people will just say things, and when you ask them to provide the evidence, they are found wanting,” he lamented.
“In the case of 2017, which involved myself, it was extremely important for me that my reputation was vindicated.”
Referring to past bribery allegations, he recounted how Mahama Ayariga and other MPs accused him of being involved in bribery during the vetting of a ministerial nominee in 2017.
“I had a long meeting with the leadership, and my conclusion was that I should go to court because I was very confident that everything Ayariga and the others said had nothing to do with me.
“I don’t know where they created it from. Of course, when the committee was set up, they said it was the then Chief Whip, Muntaka Mubarak, who told them—and Muntaka himself came and denied it.”
Reacting to accusations based on journalist Manasseh Azure’s book, which suggested that money is given to MPs after vetting, Osei-Owusu insisted that there is nothing improper about the practice.
“Somebody forwarded that Facebook thing to me. So I contacted Azure, and I sent a message, forwarded the thing to him, and he called me. He said that if perhaps I had read the book, I would see the difference,” he said. “It’s unfortunate how we stretch facts and give explanations or interpretations that have nothing to do with reality.”
When pressed on whether this amounted to influence peddling, he dismissed the notion.
“This is after the work. How can that bring an advantage to anybody? What gives a disadvantage to anybody? So it’s a pity how we can stretch facts,” he argued.
However, former Auditor General, Daniel Yaw Domelevo, who was also on the show, strongly disagreed, describing the practice as problematic and calling for its immediate cessation.
“It sounds very unfortunate for me to hear from my colleague Joe Wise say that the Chief of Staff used to bring them money after their work,” he remarked.
“Does it mean Parliament falls under the budget of the Chief of Staff? Are they not allocated their own budget?”
Mr. Domelevo argued that such payments could compromise the integrity of Parliament’s work.
“I think that is not a good practice. If it happened, I think it has to stop. If we know that after doing this work, we will be remunerated, it influences the work that we are doing. So there is influence peddling there,” he asserted. “If it is true, then I think that practice must stop.”
The revelations have sparked intense debate about the independence of Parliament and whether financial incentives—regardless of timing—can compromise the vetting process.
While Mr. Osei-Owusu maintains that these payments are harmless facilitation, Mr. Domelevo and critics argue that they undermine parliamentary integrity and create room for undue influence.
ALSO READ: