The issue of potential conflicts of interest for government officials is once again under scrutiny, particularly the role of Members of Parliament (MPs) on public boards. As debates intensify, figures like Dr. Rasheed Draman, Executive Director of the African Centre for Parliamentary Affairs (ACEPA), are advocating for stricter regulations to ensure impartiality and transparency in governance. ACEPA, a non-partisan organization, plays a critical role in strengthening parliamentary capacity and promoting good governance. Draman’s recent call to ban MPs from serving on public boards, stemming from concerns about conflict of interest, aligns with ongoing discussions about ethical standards for elected officials. The specific instance involving Isaac Adongo, and the Minority’s apprehension, has further amplified these concerns. At the heart of the matter lies the question: should MPs be banned from sitting on public boards due to potential conflict of interest?

The argument centers on the inherent conflict of interest that arises when MPs, tasked with legislative oversight, simultaneously serve on public boards. This duality can compromise objectivity, leading to biased decision-making where personal interests may clash with public duties. Examples include situations where an MP on a board votes on matters directly affecting their constituency or personal finances. Dr. Draman of ACEPA has been particularly vocal on this issue.

“…they need to go back to the books and change the standing orders and stop members of parliament from sitting on any board at all,” Dr. Draman stated, emphasizing the need for clear boundaries.

Draman’s call for a ban is rooted in the belief that it would significantly mitigate these conflicts, ensuring that MPs prioritize their legislative responsibilities without the distraction of conflicting loyalties. The controversy surrounding Isaac Adongo exemplifies these concerns. Adongo’s position on the Bank of Ghana board, while also serving on Parliament’s Finance Committee, raises questions about potential influence and access to privileged information. The Minority’s concerns highlight the perceived risks and implications of such dual roles.

Despite these concerns, arguments exist in favor of MPs serving on public boards. Proponents suggest that MPs bring valuable parliamentary expertise and oversight to these institutions, fostering improved communication between the government and the public sector. This involvement, they argue, can lead to more informed policy-making, benefiting both the institutions and the wider public. However, alternative solutions exist to mitigate conflict of interest without resorting to a complete ban. Stricter regulations, increased transparency, and independent oversight committees could provide checks and balances, ensuring accountability and ethical conduct. Amending the standing orders to include more specific guidelines regarding recusal from votes on matters where a conflict of interest exists is another potential solution.

Examining international practices reveals varying approaches to regulating MPs‘ involvement in public boards. Some countries enforce strict bans, while others rely on transparency and disclosure requirements. Best practices often involve a combination of measures, including codes of conduct, independent ethics commissions, and clear guidelines for recusal. The effectiveness of these policies hinges on enforcement and a commitment to ethical governance. The potential impact of a ban on MPs serving on public boards is significant, affecting governance and public trust. Such a ban could alter the relationship between the executive and legislative branches, potentially limiting executive overreach while enhancing legislative independence. Improved transparency and accountability are crucial for fostering public confidence in government institutions.

In conclusion, the debate over banning MPs from public boards highlights the complexities of balancing expertise and potential conflict of interest. Dr. Draman’s stance underscores the importance of ethical governance and the need for clear boundaries to safeguard public trust. Further discussion and decisive action are essential to address these concerns, ensuring that elected officials prioritize the public interest above all else.