Ghana’s Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2019 (ACT 989), represents one of the nation’s most advancing legislative achievements—a beacon of democratic promise that signals to citizens and the world that this country is serious about transparency and accountability.
Yet, this promise rings hollow when public officials and institutional heads openly defy the RTI Commission’s directives, treating the law as merely advisory rather than binding. It is time for President John Dramani Mahama to intervene decisively and demonstrate that his administration will not tolerate the systematic obstruction of citizens’ fundamental right to information.
The recent administrative penalties imposed by the RTI Commission on institutions that have willfully withheld information from applicants represent a watershed moment. These penalties are not mere technicalities or bureaucratic formalities—they are the Commission’s desperate attempt to enforce a law that public servants have treated with alarming contempt. Yet, penalties alone will fail without the political will from the highest office to ensure compliance. The President must act now, or risk watching this transformative legislation become nothing more than decorative text in Ghana’s legal framework.
The crisis of institutional defiance
What we are witnessing is not isolated acts of non-compliance but a systemic problem rooted in institutional culture. Public officers, secure in their positions and confident that consequences will never materialize, have developed an audacious habit of ignoring RTI requests. Some openly cite fabricated security concerns; others simply ignore applicants entirely. Heads of institutions, emboldened by years of impunity, have made calculated decisions that defying the RTI Commission carries fewer risks than providing transparency. This culture of defiance did not emerge by accident—it is the predictable outcome of an accountability vacuum at the executive level.
The RTI Commission, despite its important mandate, operates without the executive backing necessary to enforce its decisions effectively. While the Commission can impose administrative penalties, these mean little if heads of institutions know that the President’s office will not support escalated consequences. An institution head who faces a penalty of a few thousand Cedis but retains their position and salary has been essentially absolved of responsibility. The calculus of accountability must change, and only the President possesses the authority to change it.
The moral case for presidential action
Ghana’s democracy rests on a fundamental social contract: citizens grant authority to public officials, and in return, those officials must be answerable to the public. Information access is not a luxury or a privilege—it is the oxygen that keeps democratic scrutiny alive. When citizens cannot access information about how their taxes are spent, how policies are formulated, or how public institutions function, they are rendered powerless. They cannot hold officials accountable, cannot vote intelligently, cannot participate meaningfully in their own governance.
By tolerating RTI violations, any President effectively betrays this contract. A President who allows his appointees to obstruct information access declares, implicitly but unmistakably, that the executive branch is above the law. This is not merely an administrative failure; it is a constitutional transgression masquerading as bureaucratic negligence. It signals to citizens that their rights exist only at the pleasure of powerful officials, and that legal protections mean nothing if those in power choose to ignore them.
The President must recognize that defending the RTI Act is not a partisan issue or a matter of preference—it is a fundamental duty of office. A President who appointed heads of institutions has a corresponding responsibility to ensure those appointees obey the law. Permitting them to violate court-enforceable rights is a dereliction of that duty.
The strategic imperative
Beyond moral considerations, there is a compelling strategic reason for the President to crack down on RTI violations: legitimacy. Public institutions derive their authority from public consent, and public consent depends on the perception that institutions are reasonably honest, accountable, and fair. When citizens observe that their government systematically withholds information from them, that perception erodes. Cynicism replaces civic engagement. Distrust becomes the default posture toward all official communications.
Conversely, a President who enforces the RTI Act, even at the cost of short-term political discomfort, demonstrates seriousness about governance. Such a President signals that the administration values transparency enough to hold its own people accountable. This builds institutional legitimacy far more effectively than any public relations campaign. Citizens notice when leaders make difficult decisions in service of principle. They also notice when leaders excuse their appointees’ lawlessness.
Concrete measures the president must implement
The President should issue a clear executive directive establishing that RTI violations will result in serious consequences for heads of institutions. This directive must specify that repeated non-compliance will lead to dismissal or suspension, not merely administrative penalties. It must be backed by a presidential task force empowered to investigate allegations and ensure enforcement. The message must be unambiguous: compliance with the RTI Act is not optional for presidential appointees.
Furthermore, the President should establish a protocol requiring that all officials summoned by the RTI Commission appear in person, with documentary evidence and complete transparency. Officials should understand that attempting to mislead the Commission or providing false explanations will be treated as misconduct warranting formal disciplinary action. The President might also consider public acknowledgment of institutions that face RTI Commission rulings, creating reputational incentives for compliance that complement formal penalties.
Additionally, the President should work with the Attorney General to explore whether RTI violations constitute criminal conduct, and if so, ensure that egregious cases are prosecuted. The law should have teeth, and those teeth must be visible.
The ripple effect of presidential leadership
When a President enforces standards rigorously against his own appointees, the effect cascades throughout the public sector. Other officials take notice. Institutional cultures shift. What was once acceptable becomes unthinkable. Conversely, when a President permits his appointees to defy the courts and the RTI Commission with impunity, he essentially grants license to the entire bureaucracy to do the same.
Ghana has built an impressive legal framework for transparency. The RTI Act is among the region’s finest. But legal frameworks are only as strong as the political will that supports them. A President who chooses to enforce the RTI Act against his own appointees demonstrates that will unmistakably. He shows that his administration does not view transparency as an inconvenience to be minimized but as a cornerstone value to be protected even when protection requires difficult decisions.
Conclusion: The choice before the presidency
The President stands at a crossroads. One path leads to genuine accountability and reinvigorated democratic culture. The other leads to continued institutional defiance, eroding legitimacy, and a citizenry increasingly convinced that the law is merely a tool for controlling ordinary people while protecting the powerful.
The RTI Commission has done its part. It has held the line, imposed penalties, and refused to accept excuses. Now it falls to the President to complete the circuit of accountability. The nation is watching. Democratic foundations in Africa are fragile enough without executives permitting their appointees to openly defy the law. The President must act decisively to enforce RTI compliance, demonstrating that in Ghana, the law truly applies to all—including those who serve in government.
The time for half-measures has passed. The time for the President to crack the whip has arrived.
By Innocent Samuel Appiah
