Awards threaten cabinet teamwork – H Kwasi Prempeh concerned about collective responsibility

Professor H. Kwasi Prempeh, a prominent Ghanaian legal scholar, has raised significant concerns regarding the impact of individual ministerial awards on the principle of collective responsibility within Ghana's cabinet. He argues that such recognitions risk undermining cabinet cohesion, fostering self-promotion among ministers, and complicating the President's ability to effectively manage his executive team. This development, set against the backdrop of the "Ghana Ministers of State Excellence Awards" and allegations of impropriety, highlights a critical challenge to the constitutional framework of executive governance, where ministers are expected to operate as a unified body in delivering the government's mandate. The debate underscores the delicate balance between acknowledging individual performance and preserving the integrity and teamwork essential for effective public administration.

The recent "Ghana Ministers of State Excellence Awards" have ignited a fervent debate within Ghana's political and legal circles, drawing sharp criticism from governance experts. At the forefront of these concerns is Professor H. Kwasi Prempeh, Executive Director of the Ghana Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), who has unequivocally warned that such individual recognitions pose a direct threat to the bedrock principle of collective responsibility within the cabinet. His apprehension stems from the potential for these awards to disrupt the cohesive functioning of government and complicate the President's crucial role in managing his ministers.

This article delves into the legal and constitutional implications of individual ministerial awards in Ghana, particularly as they relate to the principle of collective responsibility. It will examine how these awards, especially amidst allegations of financial inducements, challenge the established norms of executive governance, potentially fostering an environment of competition rather than collaboration. The central thesis is that while individual recognition might seem innocuous, its application within a cabinet system can inadvertently erode the constitutional and practical underpinnings of a unified executive, thereby impacting public trust and governmental effectiveness.

Ghana operates a hybrid presidential system, where the executive authority is vested in the President, who is both Head of State and Head of Government. The President appoints Ministers of State with the prior approval of Parliament, with the majority typically drawn from among Members of Parliament. These ministers are appointed to assist the President in carrying out the mandate assigned by the people. A cornerstone of this executive structure, though its explicit textual basis in the 1992 Constitution of Ghana is sometimes debated, is the principle of collective responsibility.

Collective responsibility, in essence, dictates that all cabinet ministers must publicly support government decisions, even if they privately disagree, and are collectively accountable for the actions and policies of the government. This principle ensures a unified front, presenting a coherent policy direction to the public and Parliament. The office of a Minister of State can become vacant if their appointment is revoked by the President, among other reasons. While the President possesses the power to revoke appointments, the exercise of this power, particularly without stated reasons, has been a subject of legal discourse, with some arguing that Article 82 (vote of censure) provides the primary constitutional mechanism for ministerial removal. The expectation remains that ministers function as a team, working towards a common mandate that flows from and terminates with the President.

Professor H. Kwasi Prempeh's concerns are rooted in the practical implications of individual ministerial awards on cabinet dynamics. He argues that such awards create "perverse incentives" that encourage ministers to pursue "solo projects" for personal glory, rather than focusing on the collaborative teamwork essential for delivering the executive's collective mandate. This directly contravenes the spirit of collective responsibility, where ministers, despite holding distinct portfolios, are expected to work synergistically to achieve the President's overarching vision.

Furthermore, Professor Prempeh highlights how external recognition can complicate the President's internal management of his appointees. He posits that a minister publicly lauded as "best" might simultaneously be under consideration for removal by the President based on internal performance benchmarks. Such external validation could make difficult personnel decisions even more challenging for the President, potentially undermining his constitutional authority to assess and manage his team. This interference with the President's prerogative, derived from his executive powers under the Constitution, raises questions about the appropriate boundaries between private initiatives and public governance.

The controversy surrounding the "Ghana Ministers of State Excellence Awards" is exacerbated by serious allegations of a "cash-for-awards" scheme, where some government appointees purportedly paid significant sums to secure recognition. While the organisers, Big Events Ghana, have denied these claims, insisting on merit-based selection, these allegations have prompted calls for a parliamentary inquiry by the Minority in Parliament. Such ethical concerns not only cast a shadow over the integrity of the awards but also risk eroding public confidence in government appointees and the broader public service. The perception of impropriety, even if unsubstantiated, can be as damaging as actual wrongdoing, undermining the accountability and transparency expected of public officials.

In response to similar issues of uncoordinated public statements, the government previously issued a circular directing ministers to seek Cabinet approval before announcing major policies, explicitly citing the "collective responsibility principle enshrined in the Constitution." This directive underscores the executive's own recognition of the importance of a unified voice and coordinated action. The current debate over ministerial awards, therefore, serves as another critical test of the commitment to this principle, highlighting the need for clear ethical guidelines and robust oversight mechanisms to prevent external influences from compromising the integrity and cohesion of the executive arm of government.

The concerns raised by Professor H. Kwasi Prempeh regarding individual ministerial awards underscore a fundamental tension between individual recognition and the constitutional imperative of collective responsibility in Ghana's executive governance. While celebrating excellence is commendable, the manner and context of such awards, particularly when organised by private entities and marred by allegations of financial inducements, can inadvertently undermine the teamwork, cohesion, and accountability vital for effective government. The potential for these awards to foster internal competition and complicate presidential management decisions poses a significant threat to the unified delivery of the national mandate.

For legal practitioners and policymakers, this situation necessitates a critical re-evaluation of the ethical frameworks governing public officials and their engagement with external recognition schemes. There is an urgent need for the establishment of clear, transparent guidelines to ensure that any form of public honour for ministers aligns with, rather than detracts from, the principles of collective responsibility and public trust. The ongoing parliamentary inquiry into the "cash-for-awards" allegations is a crucial step towards upholding the integrity of public office and reinforcing the constitutional values upon which Ghana's democracy is built. Moving forward, safeguarding the sanctity of collective governance will require vigilance and a renewed commitment to institutional integrity over individual accolades.