PHOTO: Prof Kwesi Aning of KAIPTC & Franklin Cudjoe of Imani Africa
As scrutiny mounts over the tenure of Inspector General of Police (IGP) George Akuffo Dampare, one might expect prominent security analysts and governance advocates to demand greater transparency. Yet, rather than insisting on accountability, figures such as Prof. Kwesi Aning and Franklin Cudjoe appear more preoccupied with shielding the IGP from criticism.
For individuals and organisations that have historically championed good governance and institutional integrity, their reluctance to confront serious concerns within the Ghana Police Service raises critical questions. If Dampare’s leadership is beyond reproach, why resist calls for a deeper investigation? I worry how Prof. Aning and Franklin ignored the IGP’s irrefutable signs of failure when he took a fancy flight to collapse the PR department of the Police Service just to control the narrative. I am ashamed of them because that was a decision in error.
Rather than dismissing legitimate concerns, Dampare’s defenders should engage with the substantive issues that continue to surface. The following are key areas where transparency is urgently needed:
1. THE GHANA POLICE SHOP – A CONFLICT OF INTEREST?
One of the most pressing concerns involves the controversial Ghana Police Shop, a commercial establishment located within the premises of the Ghana Police Headquarters. Several questions remain unanswered:
• If the Police Service does not own the shop, who are the private individuals benefitting from it?
• How was prime public land allocated for a private commercial venture?
• Has any portion of the revenue been directed towards supporting police welfare?
The silence on this matter is glaring for governance experts who frequently highlight transparency concerns in public institutions.
2. THE SALE OF POLICE RESOURCES – WHO BENEFITS?
• Reports indicate that police uniforms and other essential accoutrements have been mysteriously disappearing from official stores, only to be found for sale in the Police Shop.
• If this shop is indeed a private business, on what basis is it stocked with items belonging to the state?
• Officers are reportedly struggling to access vital resources, yet these same items are being sold at a profit.
If there is no wrongdoing, then a full public disclosure of the shop’s ownership and operations should be welcomed.
3. SOLE-SOURCED CONTRACTS – WHY THE LACK OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING?
The procurement of police equipment under Dampare’s administration has repeatedly bypassed competitive bidding processes, raising concerns about conflicts of interest.
• Diana Nyankopa Daniels, an alleged close associate of the IGP, has been awarded multiple sole-sourced contracts.
• Similarly, Adam Bonaa—a vocal defender of Dampare—was reportedly granted a $5 million contract for body cameras without open competition.
• Many of these deals appear to circumvent the Public Procurement Act, of 2003 (Act 663).
For a government and civil society sector that has repeatedly denounced sole-sourcing in other ministries, the lack of outcry in this case is striking.
4. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT – WHO IS WATCHING THE BOOKS?
• Are police funds being directed into these questionable arrangements?
• Have any independent audits been conducted to review financial transactions under Dampare’s leadership?
• Why has there been limited financial transparency regarding the Ghana Police Service’s expenditure?
These are fundamental concerns that should be addressed through an independent forensic audit—one that all stakeholders, including Dampare’s defenders, should support if they believe in due process.
It is troubling that some of the most vocal advocates for good governance are now supporting a police chief who has, at times, appeared reluctant to answer tough questions. The Ghana Police Service is a national institution, not the personal domain of any individual. Previous IGPs have come and gone without the position being treated as a personal entitlement—why should Dampare be an exception?
If his leadership is as impeccable as his supporters claim, then a full and independent investigation into these allegations should be welcomed, not resisted. The stakes are too high for selective accountability.
If Dampare’s leadership is to be judged fairly, then those backing him must:
• Support an independent inquiry into the Ghana Police Shop’s ownership and operations.
• Demand a forensic audit of all sole-sourced contracts during his tenure.
• Call for full transparency regarding police finances and procurement decisions.
The fundamental principle is simple: no one should be above scrutiny. If Dampare has nothing to hide, then the facts should be allowed to emerge through due process.
Ultimately, history will judge whether his defenders were true champions of transparency—or mere enablers of a system they once claimed to oppose.
About The Author
