Prrivate legal practitioner Martin Kpebu has voiced his concerns and expressed skepticism over the characterization of Charles Adu Boahen’s influence peddling case as not constituting corruption.
In his view, the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) should reevaluate the case, as the allegations against Adu Boahen, when examined more broadly, could be seen as a form of corruption, aligning with the common understanding of the term.
These remarks come in response to the OSP’s decision to clear former Minister of State at the Ministry of Finance, Charles Adu Boahen, of the charge of Influence Peddling, which typically involves a person of authority or influence acting on behalf of someone else in exchange for money or favors.
Speaking on TV3, Martin Kpebu pointed out that the definition of corruption, especially when it involves using a public office for personal gain, should encompass the actions of Adu Boahen. Adu Boahen had reportedly received $40,000 in the case under investigation, and when considering his role as a political appointee, it raises significant concerns regarding potential corruption.
“When you look at the common definition of corruption being using public office for private gains, you would see that from the findings made by the OSP, Charles Adu Boahen took $40,000. If you multiply that, you get the minimum of GH¢500, 000. What for, to be able to help facilitate the meetings, etc., if that is not corruption, I don’t know what will qualify as corruption. So, that particular part is influence peddling, and so it is not corruption. I am struggling to understand it.
“It is influence peddling, but that does not mean it is the only characterisation to be given to it. Let’s use the ordinary meaning of corruption, which is that a public servant uses his office for private gain. Adu Boahen was not given the money because he was Adu Boahen, but because of where he is placed as a political appointee and he is paid from the consolidated fund, he being a public officer is not in doubt,” he said.
Furthermore, the legal practitioner emphasized the subtle distinction between influence peddling and the wider concept of corruption.
He stressed that although the OSP has concluded its investigation into the influence peddling allegation, this does not preclude the potential for future legal proceedings if new evidence surfaces.
“In the first place, the OSP report itself makes it clear that they are not closing the docket, so, in the future, it can be reopened, or if further evidence is discovered, they can be considered the same, and then they could be charged. So, it’s not been closed; it was explicitly stated in the report that that is not the end of the matter, but they are just closing it for now.
“I am thinking that, from the way the OSP has done the report, it should be going to the Attorney General for him to also look at it, but perhaps the OSP should look again. I’m struggling to understand how this isn’t corruption,” he added.