Proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of Parliament have revealed that political interference disrupted the execution of a major government grain distribution programme, preventing a contracted logistics firm from carrying out its mandate.
Officials from the Ministry of Food and Agriculture made this known during the Committee’s review of the Auditor-General’s Special Audit Report on outstanding government claims.
According to the Ministry, Rans Logistics had been contracted to transport and distribute large quantities of rice and maize across the country under an emergency intervention programme.
The Ministry’s Budget Director explained that the commodities had already been inspected and secured at the supplier’s warehouse, as the Ministry lacked adequate storage facilities at the time.
However, when the Contractor moved in to begin the distribution process, access to the warehouse was abruptly denied.
Officials told the Committee that the disruption occurred shortly after the elections, when individuals described as “party people” allegedly took control of the warehouse, effectively preventing the contractor from loading and transporting the commodities.
“We had inspected the rice at the supplier’s warehouse and taken possession of it, but when the transporter went to lift the commodities, they were physically prevented by persons who were not part of the contract,” the Ministry stated.
The Ministry further disclosed that efforts were made to regain access to the warehouse, including the involvement of the military, but these attempts proved unsuccessful, forcing the contractor to suspend operations.
Officials clarified that government had already released funds to facilitate the emergency distribution exercise.
However, after reconciliation, it became evident that the quantity of commodities transported did not correspond with the total funds disbursed.
As a result, the contractor refunded GH¢19.1 million, representing the unutilised portion of the transportation funds due to the disruption.
The Ministry emphasised that the shortfall was not due to any attempt by the Contractor to retain public funds, but was solely the result of external interference beyond its control.
Members of the Committee noted that the development raises serious concerns about how post-election political activities may have undermined the implementation of critical government programmes.
Meanwhile, the Ministry’s reference to “party people” triggered sharp exchanges among members of the Committee, as some lawmakers demanded clarity on the claim.
Member of Parliament for Ketu North, Eric Edem Agbana, expressed dissatisfaction with the explanation and insisted that the former Procurement Officer who made the statement provide further details.
He argued that the Committee operates as a body of record and it was, therefore, important to clearly establish what was meant by “party people” and which political group was being referenced.
“We beg you, Mr Chairman, we are all here. She made a categorical statement and is in a position to explain herself. Which party people? Are you saying individuals took over the supplier’s premises, leading to a GH¢19 million shortfall? She should be able to answer, respectfully,” he queried.
Although the Deputy Minister, John Dumelo, subsequently stepped in to offer an explanation, Mr Agbana insisted that the procurement officer herself should respond directly to the issue.
This insistence drew a sharp response from the Ranking Member on the Committee, Samuel Atta-Mills, who questioned Mr Agbana’s approach and defended the Deputy Minister’s intervention.
“Are you trying to suggest I am not doing my job well? The Minister has spoken and indicated that it was Ghanaians who went there,” he said, urging his colleague to show respect.
The Committee’s Chairperson, Abena Osei Asare, was forced to intervene as tempers flared, calling for order and cautioning members against turning proceedings into partisan exchanges. “I think we should end it here. You are not more partisan than your Ranking Member who is managing proceedings. Respectfully,” she directed.
Mr Agbana, who appeared visibly displeased with the remark, rejected any suggestion of partisanship, maintaining that his concerns were purely procedural.
“Madam Chair, respectfully, I take strong exception to that statement. Parliament is a House of records. My question was to ensure clarity on what was meant by ‘party people’. I did not suggest I was more partisan than anyone,” he explained.
For more news, join The Chronicle Newspaper channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbBSs55E50UqNPvSOm2z
