In every democratic republic, the essence of governance is accountability. Citizens entrust leaders with power not for its own sake, but for the advancement of the public good. It is therefore refreshing when governments take deliberate steps to render account of their stewardship to the very people who elected them. When the Mahama-led National Democratic Congress (NDC) government promised to “reset” Ghana, few anticipated that one of its most enduring legacies would be the institutionalisation of the Government Accountability Series (GAS)—a platform where Ministers of State take turns to brief the public on the actions and inactions of their ministries.
This initiative has proven to be more than a symbolic gesture. It has brought into the limelight ministries and ministers who would otherwise remain obscure, while also providing fresh insights into the work of those who frequently dominate the headlines. For the ordinary citizen, GAS has become a window into the machinery of government, offering a structured opportunity to hear directly from duty bearers. Unlike in the past, the public and the media no longer have to rely solely on the Right to Information Act (Act 989), 2019, wait for Parliamentary Question Time, or depend on the occasional briefings by Chief Directors at the Information Ministry. GAS has reframed accountability as a direct encounter: duty bearers versus the people.
Yet, as with all innovations, GAS has not been without controversy. The Attorney General and Minister of Justice, for instance, has used the platform to provide updates on ongoing criminal cases. Critics argue that such briefings risk “prejudging” suspects, undermining the constitutional principle that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. A similar approach by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), particularly in relation to high-profile cases such as those involving former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta, has also attracted criticism. The concern is that these updates, while intended to promote transparency, may inadvertently shift the battleground from the courtroom to the media space.
The backlash raises important questions. Are critics right to insist that the fight against corruption should be confined strictly to the courts? Or do duty bearers owe it to the people to provide regular updates on the progress of cases, especially when corruption is at the heart of public discontent? After all, corruption is not only a legal infraction but also a matter of perception. And in governance, perception often shapes legitimacy as much as reality. If citizens are left in the dark, mistrust festers. If they are informed, even imperfectly, confidence in institutions may be strengthened.
The tension, then, lies in balancing two imperatives: the right of the public to know and the right of suspects to a fair trial. Transparency must not become trial by media, yet silence must not breed suspicion. The challenge for Ghana’s accountability architecture is to design communication strategies that inform without prejudicing, that educate without sensationalising, and that build trust without eroding due process.
Ultimately, the Government Accountability Series and the OSP’s briefings represent a bold attempt to redefine the relationship between state and citizen. They signal a recognition that accountability is not a favour bestowed by leaders but a duty owed to the people. The criticisms, though valid, should not obscure the broader value of these initiatives. Instead, they should serve as reminders that accountability mechanisms must evolve with care, ensuring that transparency does not come at the expense of justice.
In the end, the fight against corruption is as much about perception as it is about prosecution. If Ghana is to strengthen its democratic experiment, it must continue to innovate in ways that keep citizens informed while safeguarding the rights of all. Accountability, after all, is not a destination but a journey—one that requires constant recalibration between openness and fairness, between the demands of justice and the expectations of the people.
Credit: IMANI’s CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF GOVERNANCE ISSUES (CAGI), October 27 – November 1, 2025
