Critical Gaps Plague Ghana’s Whistleblowing Framework

In Ghana’s democratic landscape, the role of whistleblowing in Parliament has stirred considerable debate—raising the stakes on the balance between transparency and political opportunism.

The IMANI Center for Policy and Education, in its recent Critical Analysis of Governance Issues (CAGI), has shed light on the state of public whistleblowing in Ghana, especially when undertaken by lawmakers.

While the practice is protected by Ghana’s Whistleblower Act, 2006 (Act 720), IMANI argued that the framework is fraught with deficiencies—ranging from narrow scope and poor implementation to weak protection for informants.

“Such issues include potential violations of the secrecy restrictions, a lack of specialized supervisory institutions to coordinate its execution, and insufficient instruction on the complexity of the law for the average Ghanaian of the Act, the inefficiency of the compensation or reward given to the informant, and the absence of precautions.”

Meanwhile, whistleblowing has emerged as a central feature of the ongoing public debate, increasingly used by Members of Parliament (MPs) to spotlight alleged wrongdoing.

However, IMANI noted that its growing use has also sparked a wave of concerns—ranging from questions about the intent and credibility of whistleblowers to the potential spread of misinformation.

More troubling, however, is the blurred line between genuine oversight and political theater.

According to IMANI, while MPs are constitutionally mandated to hold government accountable, their use of the public domain as the principal stage for whistleblowing raises ethical dilemmas.

Is it always about protecting the public purse, or sometimes about scoring partisan points?

In recent years, Ghana has witnessed some high-profile examples. In 2018, the then-MP for Assin Central, Hon. Kennedy Agyapong, went on a public crusade against investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas.

In his “Who watches the watchman” series, he claimed to expose Anas’ allegedly unscrupulous methods.

However, what began as an exposé spiraled into personal attacks that led to the public unmasking of Anas’ Associate, Ahmed Hussein-Suale, who was tragically murdered in 2019. The case, still unresolved, underscores the deadly risks of irresponsible whistleblowing.

More recently, Hon. Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, MP for North Tongu, captured national attention between 2021 and 2024 with revelations about the extravagant private jet travels of former President Akufo-Addo and alleged financial mismanagement tied to the National Cathedral project.

These disclosures, though serious, coincided with the country’s economic challenges in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, prompting many to question why such wasteful expenditure was allowed to go unchecked.

In this case, IMANI suggested, whistleblowing appeared to serve its true purpose—shedding light on the abuse of public funds and demanding accountability.

Whistleblowing, Between Truth and Political Leverage:

In a more recent and controversial case, two air ambulance planes operated by AirMed that landed in Ghana in March 2025 became the center of a heated political standoff.

Rev. John Ntim Fordjour, MP for Assin South, “alleged that the aircraft’s arrival was tied to drug trafficking, particularly in light of recent cocaine seizures.”

The accusations quickly escalated, triggering fierce exchanges between Parliament’s minority caucus and the government.

The situation reached a boiling point when agents from the National Intelligence Bureau (NIB) attempted to arrest the MP at his residence—a move thwarted by fellow MPs who demanded due process.

Accordingly, IMANI contended that this episode reveals the darker side of political whistleblowing—how unsubstantiated claims can stoke public fear, feed misinformation, and create political spectacle at the expense of truth. In a fragile democracy like Ghana’s, this is a dangerous game.

Still, not all whistleblowing is tainted. According to IMANI, the exposures by Hon. Okudzeto Ablakwa were “revelations of reckless expenditure of taxpayers’ monies by the erstwhile government,” supported by documentation and public records.

These revelations, although politically sensitive, demonstrated how parliamentary whistleblowing, when grounded in facts, can force important national conversations and reforms.

But when the act becomes entangled with political rivalry—as seen in the case of Hon. Agyapong or Hon. Fordjour—it risks discrediting the very idea of whistleblowing.

One reason MPs may resort to public platforms rather than internal institutional channels, IMANI noted, is the perceived inefficiency and lack of trust in those channels.

Members of Parliament and whistleblowing in Ghana:

“MPs resort to public whistleblowing through the media because it could gather clout for their story and portray their essence of parliamentary work to their constituents and the public. However, this visibility comes with great responsibility.”

Therein lies the challenge—balancing transparency with ethics and truth with restraint.

Ghana’s legal framework for whistleblowing, though a step in the right direction, remains too weak to manage the complexities of whistleblowing by political actors. Strengthening the law is critical—not only to protect whistleblowers but also to ensure their claims are credible, substantiated, and handled with the seriousness they deserve.

Ultimately, whistleblowing in Parliament should not become a partisan tool. As IMANI asserted, “By bringing corruption and poor management to light, whistleblowing can improve democratic governance.”

However, when misused, it muddies the waters, creates public confusion, and undermines the credibility of Parliament itself.

In a political culture already plagued by cynicism, the path forward must be clear.

Public whistleblowing must be rooted in integrity, devoid of personal or party agendas, and bolstered by a robust legal system that encourages truth-telling—without turning Parliament into a stage for political performance.