I have painstakingly read the six-statement dubbed “fact sheet” written by an anonymous concerned level 300 student of our highly esteemed institution-KTU. The question is,
- Is there any substance in what our learned colleague put out there?
- Or we should all join hands and attack him because there was not enough documentation to prove his case?
- Or maybe we did not have a full flavour of what “fact sheet” seems to address?
For convenience sake, I will use him to represent both genders when referring to the anonymous level 300 student. I have seen the Procurement Officer once, very humble with innocent personality. But one swallow does not make a summer. Give me a latitude to take you through a tour of my candid opinion of the “fact sheet”.
The writer is interesting with respect to his medium and the language of communication. However, on another breath, He seems amazing to me. He intentionally alleged in his concluding statement with the word “who wants to steal” and at the same breath made an emphatic statement with the word “is a thief”. Does it seem counterintuitive to you? But fellow comrades let us not pretend to be ostriches, it is only right to refer to a potential thief as a thief who can steal from us. Due to protection for suspects (people who may be wrongly accused) the framers of the constitution made it the sole mandate of a court of competent jurisdiction to pronounce an accused a criminal.
Notwithstanding, Act No. 18 of 1960, Criminal Offence Act of the Republic of Ghana (It is a public document so you can read the quoted section at your perusal) gives clarity to the used of the word “is a thief” provided evidence to that effect can be available. This is because such individual has the inclination to steal and for that matter, He can be charged with an attempt to commit a criminal offence. Do not forget also that with the provision of such evidence (which is only known to the whistleblower) will be charged the man in question. Charging the officer is beyond the capacity of the whistleblower. In other words, it is only right for a whistleblower of his calibre to throw insinuations, assumptions and thought-provoking allegations for the appropriate authorities to take the necessary action. And if possible, set a commission of enquiry from the office of the president for an investigation to ascertain whether there has been wrongdoing or there has been an attempt for wrongdoing for such a wild allegation. The respected office holders captured in the “fact sheet” has to redeem themselves and the office to restore the student body’s confidence in the SRC.
We cannot do business as usual, for instance, an article I retrieved from deinsider.com written by my very respected senior Afo Queku Apedzego dubbed “Mother KTU weeps; KTU SRC, The Fat Milking Cow” dated 5th June 2019 which cited corruption and corruption-related cases about the SRC was swept under the carpet. What precedence are we setting for posterity? Or has the respected office turned into what Afo Queku Apedzego characterized as “The Fat Milking Cow”? I strongly disagree with Mr. Togor with his assertions that because the man in question is an officeholder and so cannot be criticized if there is any iota of wrongdoing. I do not stand for character assassination or defamation of a noble person who has risen to power and leadership. But they are not demigods or beyond reproach or allegations, they derive their relevance from us- we the student body of KTU. The Procurement officer begged on his kneels for our support. Are we building a culture of silence, where a minority individual run a business of who get there first get the bigger share of the KTU cake at the detriment of the teaming student body? I d not think that is what is happening now.
I am shocked at the attacks on the whistleblower viz. the concerned level 300 student. What treason, what crime has he committed that he is being lambasted on many platforms? In any case, he has mentioned names such as VENMARK LLC, and some of the top SRC officials. The office is mandated to serve the interest of KTU students. So, Mr Martin Odihene Osei – Otchere, your comments that the whistleblower is doing that for parochial interest or competitive advantage is neither here nor there. Again, for the decades our society seems to tag any revolutionary as proud, radical and arrogant. I do not think that is what our current democratic dispensation is about. Democracy provides individuals with the opportunity to register their displeasure without fear, panic or being intimidated.
I think the narrative should shift from attacking the whistleblower and pointing figures at certain individuals to
- Why the procurement officer but not the FO or GNUPTS Ambassador?
- Why VENMARK CO.LTD but not any other company?
- Why he was bold enough to mention names of high profiled personalities including the president himself?
- Why did he quote a whooping amount of GHS30K but not any other amount?
And lastly, where did he get the GHS2 from that amounted to GHS30K. Whenever I am in doubt, there is one legacy I sought to, wise sayings from our ancestors, they provide deep insights. It is prudent to say “there is no smoke without fire”. Dear fellow students, if there is smoke emanating from the camp of the procurement officer and the SRC as a whole and kind courtesy to the concerned level 300 student, we are privy to, it is wise for the SRC office and the student body to give credence to the “FACT SHEET”. I invite the SRC office to use every means possible to probe into the “FACT SHEET” because there is enough information for an enquiry into the cacophony surrounding the SRC souvenir contract if there is any.
It is not just to say that any officer can execute his/her mandate guiltlessly, that is why we have watchdogs and whistleblowers. From best practices of good governance where transparency and accountability are paramount, it presupposes we do not chastise whistleblowers. Rather we applaud and encourage them to continue the good work. If this alleged scandal goes unnoticed, then we do not have a future as a country. This student politicians will someday rise up to hold a public office to serve our country Ghana, the news in the media is obvious case studies.
The “FACT SHEET” is a litmus test for the president to show leadership and his allegiance to the student body of KTU to which He sworn to. Furthermore, you can disagree with the choice of language used by the composer of the “FACT SHEET”, nonetheless, his criticisms are constructive, on point and has enough information that warrants for an investigation.
For the benefit of hindsight, The Honorable officer should understand that the “fact sheet” though pronounced him the protagonist, His office, and the entire SRC have also been indicted. The indictment of his office and the SRC is of much interest to me and the student body. Whatever legal suit he deems appropriate to charge the anonymous for character Assassinations or defamation of an office holder is of less importance to the student body. In many cases, it is his right to do so, however, my opinion seeks to call the SRC to redeem itself.
My fourth paragraph cited a typical allegation which went unattended. We should not forget posterity will judge us all. I trust the excellency will pay heed to the “FACT SHEET” to set the record straight. I still remember your distinct call during the run-up into the election Mr. President: leadership by example. I salute you all.
MY TAKE ON THE UPROAR SURROUNDING “THE FACT SHEET.”
Author: DARIES N.Y ANTWI MLS (KTU level 200).
Disclaimer: “The views/contents expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of WoBeti.com. WoBeti.com will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.”
Reproduction is authorised provided the author’s permission is granted.