The Parliamentary service board's verdict

By Kofi Akordor

WHAT began as one of those political intrigues came to an end after the Parliamentary Service Board (PSB) met and came to a conclusion. That it was wrong for the former Speaker of Parliament, Mr Ebenezer Begyina Sekyi Hughes, to return all items that did not belong to him to where they belong. It started when the former Speaker was accused of sweeping clean his official residence of everything, including curtains, rugs, cooking utensils, furniture and electrical fittings.
The former Speaker countered that he acted according to an arrangement to clear the official residence of whatever he came to meet. As would be expected, there were protestations with political undertones which tried to impute political motives instead of the serious moral and ethical issues raised.
A parliamentary select committee under the Minority Leader, Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu, was tasked to do what was the logical thing – to investigate the allegations and report back to the Parliamentary Service Board. Even though parts of the report were leaked to the media earlier, it was not until Tuesday, May 25, 2009 that the PSB met to deliberate and take a decision on the report.
From what came out of the committee’s investigation and the board’s decision, the former Speaker definitely went beyond his limits. The committee came across no evidence that the former Speaker was entitled to most of the items he took away. He was, therefore, given one week from Tuesday, May 25, 2009 to return the items.
According to Mr Alban Bagbin, the Majority Leader, there was no justification for what Mr Sekyi Hughes did, because two previous Speakers – Mr Justice D.F. Annan and Mr Peter Ala Adjetey (both deceased) did not conduct themselves in the same manner when they were leaving office.It is on record that Mr Adjetey spent his years as Speaker in his own house while Mr Justice Annan went to ‘perch’ with his wife after going on retirement.
Mr Sekyi Hughes could have avoided coming to that embarrassing end if he had been circumspect before coming to the conclusion that the items in the official residence were his for the taking. He should not have been in so much a hurry to dislodge the residence of the items. He could have sought authorisation or confirmation in black and white from the PSB before taking a decision. That could have saved everybody, including members of the Mills administration and the previous one, any unnecessary confrontations.
The position of Speaker, even though it has its political connotations, is a national one and, therefore, should not in any way be subjected to public ridicule or the person holding that position should not suffer any dishonour.
This matter could still have been handled in a more matured manner without too much public attention, but again we chose to play a political game with such a serious matter by running to the media for solace when they can offer none.
The response of Mr Sekyi Hughes to the directive of the PSB was quite strange. A day after the PSB directed the former Speaker to return all items he took away; a letter was issued by his solicitors, Zoy, Akyea & Co. addressed to the Secretary to the PSB which said Mr Hughes was “no longer interested in the items he took away from the Speaker’s official residence, bona fide”.
The letter went on; “Accordingly, for the sake of good governance, the integrity of the high office he previously occupied and in good conscience, our client states categorically that he is no longer interested in the items he took from the Speaker’s official residence, bona fide”.
The former Speaker’s solicitors in their letter invited the board to “arrange for the collection of the items from his private residence in Accra, at your earliest convenience, on agreed time schedule”.
Does it mean that the former Speaker was acting on the directives of the PSB or he was surrendering what he considered to be his lawful property because the public so wish? That cannot come from a person who has shown remorse for his actions that have embarrassed many high office holders.
To avoid such incidents in future, it should be prescribed in black and white that certain categories of public office holders who are privileged to live and enjoy at the expense of the poor taxpayer do not extend their largesse beyond their tenure. Though every servant must be reward for his/her services, an opportunity to serve the public should not be seen as a licence to rape our national economy. Modesty and the willingness to serve are very important.