Social media activist Oliver Barker-Vormawor has clarified that his recent allegations of bribery were not aimed at Parliament’s Appointments Committee. This clarification comes amid intense public and political scrutiny following a social media post that many interpreted as an accusation against the Committee. The controversy began when Barker-Vormawor, known for his outspoken criticism of governance in Ghana, claimed on social media that certain individuals were paying bribes to obtain ministerial approvals.
In his post, he wrote: “So all the monies the ministerial appointees are being asked to pay to the Appointments Committee just to get approved, are those ones not affected by ORAL? Strange Republic.” The cryptic nature of his statement, combined with the direct mention of the Appointments Committee, sparked widespread speculation and backlash. Many viewed it as an attack on the integrity of the parliamentary body responsible for vetting and approving ministerial nominees.
However, appearing before the Appointments Committee on Wednesday, January 29, Barker-Vormawor’s legal counsel, Nana Ato Dadzie, sought to clarify the activist’s remarks. Addressing the Committee, Nana Ato Dadzie emphasized that Barker-Vormawor’s comments were not meant to accuse its members of corruption but were intended to highlight broader concerns about transparency and ethical governance.
“The point of that statement is that it was not directed at the Appointments Committee in any way. It was only intended to expose certain matters that had come to his notice—acts that some people were apparently engaging in, which may not enhance transparency,” Dadzie explained.
He emphasized that the post had a double meaning and should not be viewed as a direct accusation against the Committee’s work or integrity. Rather, it was intended as a whistleblower’s attempt to highlight unethical practices within Ghana’s political landscape. “It was never his intention to disparage the Appointments Committee. One can clearly say that the statement has a dual meaning. If anything, it serves as a whistleblower’s indication that certain issues are occurring,” he added. Barker-Vormawor’s clarification comes as Parliament continues to uphold its commitment to due process and accountability during the vetting of ministerial nominees.
By: Kabah Atawoge
