Ghana's Leaders Must Stop Selling Their Nation Short

One often wonders, whether there are moments of quiet reflection, during which many patriotic Ghanaians ponder over what could possibly be the rationale for the many one-sided agreements, which some of their nation's leaders end up signing with foreign investors - even though those agreements are detrimental to Ghana's long-term interests.

Could it perhaps also be the case that those discerning and independent-minded Ghanaian patriots, find it baffling that on top of that outrage, there are many leading politicians (mostly highly-intelligent and well-educated individuals) prepared to publicly justify even the most reprehensible and unjustifiable of agreements, which Ghana signs with foreign multinational corporations?

The question then is: What motivates those highly-placed public officials and politicians, who let Ghana down so badly, by approving such detrimental agreements? Do they never think of the well-being of their nation and the welfare of its people?

If we had 60/40 percent production-sharing agreements in Ghana's favour, for example,  instead of being lumbered with the world's worst oil agreements with foreign oil companies, Ghana could literally self-finance: all planned modernisation and expansion projects to enhance its infrastructure; provide well-designed and well-built affordable housing in new green cities nationwide; provide  free education from kindergarten to tertiary level for all those with the aptitude to study; as well as give all its citizens free quality-healthcare in  world-class hospitals - meaning that ordinary Ghanaians would be able to enjoy the same high standards of living enjoyed by the citizens of Saudi Arabia and the wealthy Arabian Gulf states (all of which incidentally have production-sharing agreements with foreign oil companies, it must be noted).

 And yet another example of an odious, selling-Ghana-short-agreement that  is  detrimental to Ghana's long-term interests, is the Atuabo port agreement between Ghana and Lonrho - which was rubber-stamped by a Parliament constitutionally mandated to scrutinise and prevent Ghana from being lumbered with precisely such  patently unfair agreements.

 Predictably, and true to form, many leading members of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), are trying to  justify what is an egregious example of the socialisation of private risk.

 Clearly, Lonrho wants to take advantage of all the opportunities inherent in a market economy - but it also wants to eat its cake and have it in Ghana's case.

"They have no doubt had excellent coaching lessons from the foreign oil companies with whom they are planning to prosper mightily together at Mother Ghana's expense", to quote an old wag I know.

So, today, Lonrho wants the state in what is an African democracy, and a free society in which the rule of law prevails, to protect it from potential competitors - by granting it a virtual monopoly that flagrantly flouts our laws (Section 5 (1) of PNDC Law 160 of 1986, which established the Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority). How can that be?

Yet, only recently, the NDC's Mr. Amertepe Kwame,  claimed on Peace FM's Kokrokoo morning show programme that in seeking to prevent potential competitors from engaging in the same kinds of businesses sought by Lonrho,  in the Atuabo port agreement with Ghana, the NDC government was only seeking to protect the company's investment. Amazing.

Perhaps the question that the Amertepe Kwames in our midst ought to ponder over is: Would Lonrho have dared to demand the same outrageous terms and conditions from the authorities in either the UK or Germany (or elsewhere in the rest of the European Union (EU) for that matter), in a proposal for an agreement to invest in building a new port along their coastline? Definitely not, is the short answer.

 A long-standing policy of the authorities in all the EU member states (and the European Commission itself in its Brussels headquarters) has been to ensure  that competition is never compromised in all such instances.

That is why active steps have always been taken by the European Commission and the authorities in all the EU member-states to prevent companies from establishing monopolies when investing in their national economies. Why then should the situation be any different for Lonrho in Ghana?

Has competition in the telecoms sector, for example, in which foreign telecommunications companies have invested billions of dollars,  not benefitted the Ghanaian economy?

In addition to giving consumers affordable access to sundry wireless broadband internet services, and connecting millions of mobile phone users to each other across the country, have they not created employment opportunities for tens of thousands countrywide, despite the intense competition in the industry?

 For the information of the Amertepe Kwames, the only 'protection' that any government in the 4th Republic can lawfully offer any foreign investor - at any given point in time - is the constitutional guarantee that legitimate businesses of theirs will not be expropriated. Nothing more, nothing less.

 (And lest they forget, the something-for-nothing-ripp-off-culture that prevailed during the colonial era, which enabled unimaginable wealth acquired through scandalous profiteering to be shipped out of Africa, was supposed to have ended some 57 odd years ago in Ghana - when Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah's Convention People's Party (CPP) government took over the running of the country from the British colonialists who once occupied it. But I digress.)

 With respect, do we not operate a  market economy in Ghana - and therefore, presumably rely on market forces, not the power of the state, to determine the eventual fate of companies investing in our national economy: be they domestic or foreign?

 Why help foreign companies to establish near-monopolies here, when what Ghana's economy actually needs is competition-driven efficiency, which will produce the necessary high-productivity levels needed to make Ghana globally competitive?

 Well, speaking for myself, it is heartwarming to hear from the general secretary of the Maritime and Dock-Workers Union, Mr. Daniel Owusu Koranteng, that the union is talking to its lawyers, with a view to challenging the Lonrho Atuabo port agreement's validity in the law courts.

Hopefully, when that matter is concluded, the court's judgement will restrain the government from selling Ghana short in yet another one-sided agreement with a foreign investor that is detrimental to the long-term interests of Ghana.

Incidentally, since a legal challenge to the Atuabo  port  agreement between Ghana and Lonrho has been mounted  by five MPs, and is already being heard before the Sekondi high court, in order not to  cause an affront to that court's dignity, and thereby avoid being charged for contempt of court, for now one feels constrained from any further detailed public comment, till that particular case is finally disposed of.

 Alas, under the circumstances, one only can, but pray, for our current leaders - and hope that going forward  they will be blessed with the wisdom to discern what is right for our nation and its people at all material times and act accordingly: particularly when signing agreements with foreign multinational corporations seeking to exploit business opportunities in Ghana.

 It is time our ruling elites ceased selling Ghana short: Henceforth, all the agreements they sign with foreign investors must be win-win ones. If they don't revise their notes quickly, they will soon have to contend with a #StopSellingMotherGhanaShort social media campaign against them. A word to the wise...