A conversation over accountability, corruption and national reputation dominated a roundtable discussion on Joy Newsfile, as panellists weighed whether the pursuit of former public officials facing criminal convictions abroad should be seen as an embarrassment or a necessary step to restore public trust.
Speaking on the programme hosted by Samson Lardy, Susan Adu-Amankwah, Executive Secretary of the National Interest Movement, dismissed claims that Ghana’s international image is harmed when high-profile figures are compelled to return home to face justice.
“I don’t believe we are embarrassed,” Adu-Amankwah said. “I don’t know who is embarrassed. This is about us. It’s about time we put ourselves first before we put anybody else first.”
The discussion centred on renewed public debate over former officials, including Sedina Tamakloe Attionu, who was convicted in absentia on multiple corruption-related charges. Madam Susan argued that efforts to bring such individuals back to Ghana to serve their sentences should be viewed as a signal of seriousness rather than shame.
International media coverage, she said, should not deter authorities from acting. “The international media is talking about it. They are talking about Ghana, fugitives from justice,” she noted. “But we don’t care. Asking someone who has been judged to have committed a crime to come back and serve her sentence is good for us as a people.”
According to Madam Susan, accountability at the highest levels of government is essential to addressing the culture of corruption that many Ghanaians complain about. Allowing political elites to evade consequences, she warned, sends a damaging message to the wider public.
“If we don’t start punishing the political elite, then we should forget about the people down there,” she said. “They look up to the political elite to show direction. If the elites get away with all sorts of things, the people will say, ‘What gives? We’ll do as we please.’”
She linked what she described as widespread indiscipline and corruption in society to a perception that those in power often escape accountability. In her view, visible punishment of senior figures would act as a deterrent and help rebuild confidence in state institutions.
She also rejected suggestions that pursuing such cases undermines national pride. She posed a rhetorical question: whether ordinary Ghanaians would truly feel embarrassed if someone found to have misappropriated public funds, particularly money meant for vulnerable groups was brought back to face punishment.
“If you asked 10 Ghanaians off the street, are you embarrassed that someone who has taken money from poor women, people struggling to put food on their table, is being punished?” she said. “I’m sure they’ll say no.”
During the discussion, Lardy noted similarities between the number of charges faced by different former officials, prompting Madam Susan to quip that “78 seems to be the magic number,” a remark that drew light laughter but underscored the seriousness of the allegations being discussed.
The conversation also touched on calls from within the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) urging one former official to return voluntarily to clear his name. Madam Susan said such calls could help the party’s reputation, particularly if it believes the individual is innocent.
“If they actually believe he’s innocent of all the charges, he should come and prove it,” she said, adding that even within the NPP there appeared to be support for that position.
However, Lardy cautioned that voluntary return might no longer be an option, suggesting that immigration processes abroad could result in deportation regardless of political appeals at home.
Madam Susan expressed hope that foreign authorities would respect Ghana’s judicial processes. “If a country has determined that somebody should come and answer for their crimes, and you keep that person, you’ll be speaking on both sides of your mouth,” she said, arguing that such an outcome would be inconsistent with current international norms.
She framed the issue as part of a broader legacy question for Ghana’s leadership, saying firm action would demonstrate “zero tolerance” for corruption, regardless of personal or political ties.
“The fact that you punish a family member for wrongdoing doesn’t mean you hate them,” she said. “It’s a deterrent. It shows crime doesn’t pay.”
As the programme concluded, the debate reflected a wider national conversation: whether Ghana’s fight against corruption is best served by caution over image or by uncompromising enforcement of the law. For Madam Susan, the answer was clear. “It’s not an embarrassment at all,” she said. “We need to show that it is not business as usual.”