Every democracy needs fearless journalism. Ghana is no exception. Journalists have a sacred duty to scrutinise the use of public funds, expose corruption where it exists and demand accountability from those entrusted with taxpayers’ money. That responsibility has strengthened many of our public institutions over the years. But accountability must be anchored in evidence, fairness and balance. When public discourse shifts from interrogating facts to repeatedly targeting one indigenous company without first establishing illegality, it is only fair to ask whether the conversation is still about accountability or something else entirely.
This question has once again come to the fore following a Facebook post by investigative journalist Manasseh Azure Awuni, in which he published documents obtained under the Right to Information Act showing that approximately GH¢1.5 billion from the Sanitation and Pollution Levy was disbursed to companies associated with the Jospong Group. His conclusion was unmistakable. Ghana’s sanitation challenge, he suggested, is not the result of inadequate funding but rather the concentration of public resources in what he described as a monopoly.
The figures contained in the documents deserve public scrutiny. Every cedi of public money should be accounted for. However, one fundamental question remains unanswered. Do the documents themselves establish wrongdoing?
The answer, based on what has been published, is no.
The documents show payments. They identify beneficiary companies. They indicate the source of the funds. What they do not demonstrate is that procurement laws were breached, contracts were illegally awarded, services were not rendered or public funds were misappropriated. There is an important legal and factual distinction between evidence of payment and evidence of corruption. Confusing the two does a disservice to the very accountability every Ghanaian desires.
Indeed, the more relevant questions should be straightforward. Were the contracts advertised or lawfully procured under Ghana’s Public Procurement Act? Were the approvals obtained from the appropriate state institutions? Were the services executed according to the contractual terms? Were the payments certified by the relevant government agencies? Have the Auditor-General, the Office of the Special Prosecutor or any competent court found Zoomlion or the associated companies guilty of procurement breaches or financial misconduct in relation to these payments?
These are the questions that matter because they go to the heart of legality rather than perception.
Unfortunately, much of the public debate appears to focus less on whether the law was followed and more on who received the contracts. That approach is troubling. If a Ghanaian company competes, satisfies procurement requirements and delivers services under contracts awarded by successive governments, should its success alone become grounds for perpetual suspicion?
This is where the conversation must move beyond personalities and return to principle.
For decades, every government has spoken passionately about local content. We have repeatedly declared our desire to build strong indigenous enterprises capable of competing with multinational corporations. We encourage banks to finance Ghanaian businesses. We urge citizens to buy Ghanaian goods. We call on investors to partner local firms. Yet when a wholly Ghanaian-owned company grows into one of Africa’s largest waste management enterprises, employing thousands of Ghanaians directly and indirectly while expanding beyond our borders, sections of society appear more interested in tearing it down than demanding that it simply complies with the law.
No serious nation develops by undermining its own entrepreneurs.
This is not to suggest that indigenous businesses should enjoy immunity from scrutiny. They should not. Every company that receives public funds must be transparent and accountable. However, there is a significant difference between demanding accountability and creating the impression that commercial success itself is suspicious. If procurement laws have been violated, let the evidence be produced. If contracts were inflated, let investigators establish the facts. If there has been fraud, the courts should impose the appropriate sanctions. But where those findings do not exist, it is only fair that public commentary reflects that reality.
Equally important is the broader policy question. If there are genuine concerns about monopoly within Ghana’s sanitation sector, then the solution lies in procurement reform, competition policy and encouraging more qualified local companies to participate in public tenders. It should not become an exercise in singling out one company while ignoring the wider procurement framework under which governments of different political persuasions have continued to award sanitation contracts.
Interestingly, Manasseh Azure Awuni’s views have not always been accepted by institutions with oversight responsibility for the sector. Earlier this year, Parliament’s Select Committee on Sanitation publicly disagreed with his position regarding the renewal of Zoomlion’s contract with the Youth Employment Agency. The Committee, after considering the matter, arrived at a different conclusion. Whether one agrees with Parliament or not, the episode demonstrates an important point. Public policy questions often admit differing interpretations. No single commentator, however accomplished, possesses a monopoly over the truth.
That reality should encourage humility in public discourse. It should also remind us that Parliament, auditors, procurement authorities and the courts exist precisely to evaluate evidence and determine whether laws have been complied with. Their conclusions, where properly reached, deserve equal consideration alongside investigative reports.
Another issue deserves reflection. Ghana’s sanitation challenges did not begin with Zoomlion, nor will they end with Zoomlion. Flooding, poor waste management, inadequate landfill infrastructure, weak enforcement of sanitation by-laws and rapid urbanisation are structural challenges that require coordinated responses from central government, metropolitan assemblies, regulators and private sector partners. Reducing these complex national problems to the activities of one company risks oversimplifying issues that demand comprehensive policy solutions.
As Ghanaians, we must guard against a culture where indigenous businesses become guilty in the court of public opinion simply because they have become successful. We should insist on transparency. We should demand value for money. We should expect rigorous audits and strict compliance with procurement laws. But we must also recognise that supporting local enterprise and insisting on accountability are not mutually exclusive objectives. They are complementary pillars of national development.
If there is evidence of wrongdoing, let it be investigated and prosecuted. If contracts have been poorly executed, let the appropriate sanctions follow. But if the evidence merely establishes that payments were made under contracts approved by the relevant state institutions, then fairness demands that the debate remains anchored in facts rather than inference.
Ghana needs investigative journalism. It also needs strong indigenous companies capable of creating jobs, paying taxes and projecting Ghanaian enterprise across Africa. Our national interest is best served when both flourish, under the rule of law, under robust oversight and without prejudice.
