Dr. Mustapha Hamid
The confidence with which the former Chief Executive Officer of the National Petroleum Authority (NPA), Dr. Mustapha Hamid, brushed off the Special Prosecutor’s so-called GH¢100 million asset seizure announcement left many Ghanaians puzzled.
According to Dr. Hamid, the much-publicised claim by Special Prosecutor Kissi Agyebeng was false, and that none of his assets had been frozen, contrary to what was widely reported.
It was, indeed, unimaginable that the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) could make such a serious public announcement only for it to turn out untrue. Who was speaking the truth? Was the Special Prosecutor merely reacting to Dr. Hamid’s earlier dismissal of his case as “bogus,” and thus seeking to save face?
It will be recalled that when a journalist asked Dr. Hamid about the OSP’s case against him, he bluntly described it as bogus. Not long after that, an evidently incensed Special Prosecutor announced the alleged seizure of Dr. Hamid’s assets, which is estimated at GH¢100 million.
Dr. Hamid promptly denied the claim, insisting that no such action had been taken. The spectacle soon resembled a game of ping-pong, each side contradicting the other.
Known for his quick and often spirited responses to criticism, the Special Prosecutor, curiously, maintained an uncharacteristic silence this time. His delayed reaction heightened public curiosity, especially among Ghanaians who now view his media interactions as a mix of legal drama and entertainment.
Here was a Special Prosecutor whose integrity was being publicly questioned by a former public official. Naturally, Ghanaians were left wondering: who was lying? Were the assets truly frozen or not? And if not, why did the announcement follow so swiftly after Dr. Hamid’s “bogus” remark?
Was this a case of failed emotional intelligence on the part of the Special Prosecutor?
As it turned out yesterday, no assets belonging to Dr. Hamid had been frozen, as initially announced. The revelation left the former NPA boss vindicated, and laughing last.
The Office of the Special Prosecutor must be spared such image-denting blunders. Its mandate places it in a unique and highly scrutinised position, requiring restraint, accuracy, and credibility at all times.
We are compelled to ask: what motivated the Special Prosecutor to be economical with the truth when he made the announcement? This mendacious claim has severely dented the image of the OSP and cast doubts on its operational integrity.
Our Special Prosecutor has shown a tendency to become personally entangled in the cases he handles, an approach that undermines the objectivity needed for successful prosecutions.
A consummate lawyer of his standing should demonstrate better judgment. Rash, ill-considered public statements do not enhance his reputation; they only debase the Office he leads.
The people of Ghana deserve to know what truly led to this blunder – the assets freezing which never was.