The Public Affairs Manager of the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) says the audit report on cocoa roads was originally not meant for the public, and that the decision to publish will depend on the government.
According to Fiifi Boafo, the essence of the report was to understand the issues surrounding the management of cocoa roads.
His response comes after John Dramani Mahama, the NDC flagbearer, demanded the publication of the aforementioned audit report.
Mahama indicated that it was unjustifiable the move by the Akufo-Addo administration to abandon the cocoa roads projects upon assumption of office in January 2017.
But speaking to Citi News, Boafo responded: “Yes there is a report, and unlike the expectation of some people that the report will be published, the essence of the report was to understand issues surrounding the management of cocoa roads. The report was to serve as a guide to management. So, if the former President wants the report published for political discourse, I am afraid, our approach is different.”
He continued: “We have not been instructed to put the report out there yet. It was submitted in 2019. When a decision is made by the board and management, of course, in consultation with the government that we publish the report, we will not hesitate.”
Fifi Boafo further stated that the investigation into the award of cocoa roads under the erstwhile Mahama administration was not based solely on corruption allegations as speculated, but it helped the board make some corrections to the scope of the road projects.
He noted, “It is not a question of why no one has been found corrupt after the investigation? The report was to among other things confirm [……] the suspicions [of] corruption at the time.”
Fiifi Boafo then disclosed: “A number of actions have arisen from the report. We had to redesign some of the projects. There were some roads that were designed without bridges though they were required. The report helped us to re-scope some of these designs. There were other projects that had no faults. There were issues as to whether or not the contractors had the capacity to execute the contracts given to them.”