18/02/2025
Long read. Kindly indulge me..
If John Mahama were to publish his assets and not only declare them, it would set a powerful precedent for transparency in governance. As the President, his actions carry significant weight. By making his financial status public, he would signal a commitment to accountability and challenge the prevailing culture of secrecy in politics. While Article 286 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana requires public officials—including the President, Vice President, Ministers, and others—to declare their assets and liabilities before taking office, every four years, and upon leaving office, the law does not mandate public disclosure unless required by a court or a commission of inquiry. Mahama choosing to go beyond this legal requirement would demonstrate true leadership in the fight against corruption.
This move would have a strong influence on his appointees, especially younger politicians who look up to him. Leadership is about setting examples, and if Mahama embraces full disclosure, his team would feel greater pressure to follow suit. Younger appointees, in particular, would learn that integrity is not just an ideal but a standard expected of those in public service. By making his assets public, he would encourage a new generation of leaders to prioritize accountability, knowing that their own financial dealings could come under public scrutiny.
Moreover, such transparency would make it more difficult for corrupt practices to thrive within his administration. When leaders openly declare their assets, it creates a culture where financial dealings are scrutinized, reducing opportunities for illicit wealth accumulation. The current legal framework requires asset declaration to be submitted to the Auditor-General, but without public disclosure, the effectiveness of this measure remains limited. If Mahama voluntarily discloses his assets, he would set a new benchmark that could discourage appointees from engaging in unethical financial practices.
Beyond his own administration, Mahama’s decision would also put pressure on political opponents and other public officials to do the same. If one major leader commits to transparency, the public would increasingly demand similar disclosures from all political figures. This could gradually lead to systemic reform, strengthening the fight against corruption in Ghana. It would also highlight the gap in the law, prompting discussions on whether public asset declarations should become a legal requirement rather than a discretionary act.
Furthermore, Mahama’s voluntary disclosure would enhance his credibility as a leader committed to good governance. It would give him greater moral authority to demand accountability from his appointees and political opponents. Public trust in politicians is often low, but when a leader takes bold steps to promote transparency, it reassures citizens that public office is about service rather than self-enrichment.
Ultimately, publishing his assets would not just be a symbolic act but a governance reform tool. It would reshape expectations of political leadership, setting a precedent that future leaders may find difficult to ignore. By taking the initiative to disclose his assets voluntarily, Mahama would demonstrate that true accountability is not just about legal obligations but about earning the trust of the people he seeks to serve.
PKP
