A loan at a total principal of $28 million secured by the Government of Ghana – a facility not for building a hospital or tarring a stretch of road, nor a facility to support young entrepreneurs, nor expand the educational infrastructure, and not to improve the capacity of the security services – but a loan facility for Members of Parliament of the Republic of Ghana to purchase cars. To put it in perspective, each member of the 275 MPs shall receive a loan package to buy an SUV – V8, where 60% of the principal plus its interest will be serviced by the Central Government.
This development has generated a lot of controversy, mainly backlash from a majority of the population. Most Ghanaians express that the arrangement has been wrongly timed and, most regrettable, reflects insensitivity on the part of the political leadership. These feedback result from the seeming hardship within the country – there have been increased taxes and prices of goods and services, as well as low increment of wages and salaries of public workers amidst a high cost of living.
The opaque nature or estimation of ex-gratia paid to MPs at the dissolution of each parliament, the controversy of the $250 million construction of a new legislative chamber, state-sponsored security and other essential allowances due each legislator, notwithstanding monthly salaries due them, are the reference points for such rage sprouted from Ghanaians. These conditions attached to their service have always appeared distasteful to the masses.
However a strong case has been argued by the lawmakers concerning these conditions and emoluments. First among the arguments is the misconstrued definition of duty that the public or constituents have imposed on them. Legislators have been viewed as agents of development in their respective constituencies – a development, they argue , shifts the burden of initiating development in areas to their offices. Even more, they become the first point of call for people in need of any financial support.
In the recent saga of car loans, lawmakers proffer that their exclusion from the arrangement of the state to procure vehicles for them, just as it is done for other public officers such as officers of the judiciary, security services, and local government personnel, marks an inequality that goes further to strain their purses.
There has also been the case of lack of retirement benefits for past legislators. The status quo a has led to impoverishment and low living standards for several former Members of Parliament. Such and more have been advanced to justify any sort of support and improvement in condition of service for our representatives.
But between the general opposition to any additional support to the Ghanaian legislator at the expense of taxes of the ordinary Ghanaian, and the arguments advanced by the parliamentarians themselves in favor of such emoluments, a thin space exists that affords the ordinary citizen the curiosity to question whether or not Members of Parliament live off meager incomes, just like the ordinary Ghanaian, or as assumed, lives comfortably and thus, a group of self-centered political elites fixated on draining the coffers of our Republic.
However, carefully, this discussion must be taken in the context of the living standards of the average Ghanaian and the expectations of service of conditions of an MP – who spends very huge sums of money and resources to get elected imas a legislator – with outmost recourse to the level of development of our dear country Ghana 🇬🇭 and the responsibilities of the MP to that regard.
Writer: Lansah Lawrence
fb.com/harrunalansah
Lansah Lawrence 